tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-46410112460119928542024-03-13T23:17:52.233-07:00Law Offices of Steven W. Hansenvoice/text 562.866.6228 | legal.inquiry@swhlaw.com | My Profile: https://goo.gl/EKgLyUUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger126125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-26298869098315938062024-03-11T12:50:00.000-07:002024-03-11T12:50:47.642-07:00Effective March 7, 2024, new fire code legislation takes effect for lithium-ion batteries for Powered Mobility Devices in San Francisco.<p>Following New York City in 2023 the city of San Francisco has developed a new fire code in effect as of March 7 regarding the use and charging of lithium ion batteries. Hopefully the US Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) moved much faster on its hinting of taking action on batteries this year because to have many sets of state and local laws regarding batteries is going to be very confusing and disruptive for the industry. The longer the CPSC waits the worse this problem is going to get with conflicting state and local laws. Also some of these fire code issues like with this one deal with the storage and charging aspects (that affect users and more importantly retailers) that go beyond a "product only" design type of standard which I expect out of CPSC at some point.<br /></p><p>The new code section <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1imVPHE8F4mAiE4GB0wsZKqWnl-kd2Fzt/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">available in full here</a> defines Powered Mobility Devices (PMDs) as devices powered by a lithium-ion battery with the primary purpose of transporting people, such as electric bikes, scooters, hoverboards, or skateboards. PMDs do not include wheelchairs or other devices used by persons with disabilities.<br />- All PMDs in San Francisco must be Safety-Certified, which is defined as compliance with one of the following certification requirements: <br /> Underwriters Laboratories (UL) standards UL 2849 or UL 2272<br /> European (EN) standards EN 15194 or EN 17128<br /> Other safety standard of an accredited laboratory, approved by the San Francisco Fire Department.<br />
<br />
</p><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2020 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-30964230628301997092024-02-11T16:29:00.000-08:002024-02-11T16:29:23.221-08:00CPSC finally is taking real action on electronic certificates of compliance<div class="block block-delta-blocks block-page-title block-delta-blocks-page-title" id="block-delta-blocks-page-title"><span class="views-label views-label-created">Published </span> <span class="field-content">February 5, 2024</span>
</div><div class="block block-views block-author-block block-views-author-block" id="block-views-author-block">
<div class="block-inner clearfix">
<div class="content clearfix">
<div class="view view-author view-id-author view-display-id-block view-dom-id-7d1689a8e85567ecabc287048b177a8e">
<div class="view-content">
<div class="views-row views-row-1 views-row-odd views-row-first views-row-last">
by <span class="field-content authname"><a href="https://www.bicycleretailer.com/steven-hansen-0">Steven Hansen</a></span> </div>
</div>
</div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p dir="ltr">Reprinted with permission from <a href="https://www.bicycleretailer.com/steven-hansen-0" target="_blank">Bicycle Retailer and Industry News </a></p><p dir="ltr">Original <a href="https://www.bicycleretailer.com/opinion-analysis/2024/02/05/cpsc-finally-taking-real-action-electronic-certificates-compliance" target="_blank">article link</a> <br /></p><p dir="ltr">A
certificate of compliance requirement was in the original Consumer
Product Safety Improvement Act passed in 2008 and signed by George W.
Bush. It has taken 16 years for the Consumer Product Safety Commission
to finally implement the full intended scope of electronic certificates
of compliance as originally envisioned by Congress in 2008.</p>
<p dir="ltr">There have been multiple “beta” and “pilot” programs with
many large institutional participants (especially many large retailers,
e.g., Walmart and Target) giving feedback on the process. Only one or
two small bike brands gave feedback per the current notice of proposed
rulemaking, and it's not even clear they were in the pilot or beta
programs.</p>
<p>The biggest issue I see for the bike industry is that the commission
is proposing that the new rules take effect within 120 days of the new
rules being passed; the passage date is not clear at this point. Given
that the bike industry is slow to respond to large changes in the manner
of doing business like this and that there has been zero coverage of
this issue, I suspect there will be some pushback and scrambling going
on especially by smaller brands.</p>
<p>These rules have been in effect for many years, but now that CPSC has
teamed up with Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on this project, the
certificates will need to be filed before importation using the
elaborate electronic system called the Automated Commercial Environment
(ACE). The CBP has completed its ACE interface and the Partner
Government Agency Message Set, which now enable importers or their
brokers to submit electronic import data.</p>
<p>The Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPR) to amend 16 CFR Part 1110 was first published on Dec. 8. <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document/CPSC-2013-0017-0083">All 65 pages are here</a>,
not including the 289-page Ballot package that the CPSC commissioners
have to vote on and that contains more details about the Part 1110 rule
change. Comments have to be received by Tuesday at 5 p.m. <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/CPSC-2013-0017-0083">They can be made here</a>.</p>
<p>Only finished products or substances that are subject to a CPSC rule,
ban, standard, or regulation, are required to be tested and certified,
and only such finished products that are imported into the United States
for consumption or warehousing would be required to e-file certificates
with CBP.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong>How the bike industry is affected</strong></p>
<p>This is of course where things start getting murky, especially for
the bike industry that has many segments: human-powered bikes, e-bikes,
bikes intended for kids under 12, original equipment components,
aftermarket components, and replacement components. Many industries
don’t have to deal too much with replacement parts, such as the toy
industry.</p>
<p>Here is a quote from CPSC’s response to one comment made previously:</p>
<p><em>Comment 38: Several commenters expressed confusion regarding the
difference between certificates for component parts, for finished
products, and for replacement parts of consumer products.</em></p>
<p><em>Response 38: Proposed § 1110.3(b) defines “component part” as a
product or substance that is intended to be used in the manufacture or
assembly of a finished product, and is not intended for sale to, or use
by, consumers as a finished product. The SNPR defines a “finished
product” as a product or substance that is “regulated by the commission
that is imported for consumption or warehousing or is distributed in
commerce.” The SNPR definition explains that parts of such products or
substances, including replacement parts, that are imported for
consumption or warehousing, or are distributed in commerce, and that are
packaged, sold, or held for sale to, or use by, consumers, are
considered finished products.</em></p>
<p dir="ltr"><em> Only (1) finished products (2) subject to a CPSC rule
must be tested and certified. (I added these numbers for clarification
that it’s a two part-test.) Component part certificates are voluntary
and are not required to accompany an imported component part, are not
required to be furnished to retailers and distributors (as described in
proposed § 1110.13(b)), and are not to be e-filed.</em></p>
<p>Not all replacement parts are finished products that require testing
and certification. A replacement part of a consumer product that meets
the definition of a finished product may be subject to Part 1110, if the
replacement part is subject to a rule. For example, a stem for a
bicycle that is sold to consumers as a replacement part requires a
certificate, because stems, either as a stand-alone product or as part
of a finished bicycle, must be tested for strength in accordance with 16
CFR 1512.18(g). (I tend to disagree with this part as the CPSC
historically, even in recalls, has not taken this position that 16 CFR
1512 is a separately sold “component” standard but rather a “complete
bike” standard.)</p>
<p>Additionally, parts of toys, such as doll accessories, that are sold
to consumers as a separate finished product, must comply with all
applicable rules, including for example lead in paint and/or lead
content (Editor’s note: if it is a product intended for children under
12). If the same doll accessories were imported for manufacturing
purposes and not for consumption or warehousing, (this is a small part
of competent imports in the bike business) and were intended to be
combined with a doll for sale, then such accessories would not be a
finished product required to be certified until they are part of a
finished product.</p>
<p><strong>Majority of aftermarket products will need testing</strong></p>
<p>So this means that 80% of the aftermarket products are going to need
CPSC testing provided there is some requirement in a CPSC rule that
arguably pertains to that bike product or component. If they are not
“intended for children under 12” (kids product) that testing can be done
in house apparently by the manufacturer or brand (subject to other
requirements). If it is a kids product then a CPSC certified lab has to
do the testing, which includes chemical testing (that does not meet
California Prop 65 requirements, by the way).</p>
<p>E-bikes don’t have their own standard except for 16 CFR 1512,
provided they meet the 20 mph requirement in the standard; if they
don't, well then there are other issues to deal with. E-bike batteries,
of course, don’t yet have a CPSC standard as they are not discussed in
16 CFR 1512, so in theory they escape the rule and these new testing and
reporting requirements. How ironic as they are the biggest threat at
this time and not really foreseen in 2008.</p>
<p>How this whole process is going to work as far as getting that
testing data etc. into the CPB and CPSC computers is what has been the
focus of multiple beta filing pilots. The importer of record has the
responsibility. Not the foreign manufacturer. It's also not clear how
this works with the tariff codes and what the timing is on the uploading
of this data before the product hits U.S. shores. Import brokers are
obviously a resource but won't likely be doing this for free. I do see a
process where smaller companies are going to be allowed to access the
data entry screens from the CPSC website using a special logon and
portal. </p>
<p>The “new” CPSC Product Registry will allow importers, or their
designees, to enter the certificate data elements via a user interface,
batch upload, and/or Application Programing Interface (API) upload. The
user interface is a step-by-step process, where the importer submits one
certificate at a time. The batch upload allows the importer to submit
multiple certificates using a Comma-Separated Value template. The API
upload allows the importer to build an API connection via the product
registry and their data systems to instantaneously enter certificates.
Clearly, this is going to involve some training on the brand side of the
equation.</p>
<p>So, for example, if you import 10 SKUs, or more or less all of the
same model bike widget with 10 colors, every time you get a container
shipped from Asia, you will know what the test requirement is for the
widget, and you will have it tested by the manufacturer, unless it's a
child widget, and that data will pretty much be cut and pasted each time
using a CSV data spreadsheet. But it will need to be changed if you
change suppliers or test requirements or anything else on the product
changes, usually SKU’s changes.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><strong>Import enforcement currently lacking</strong></p>
<p>The whole rationale for this rule change and disruption is as
follows: Currently, CPSC's import enforcement methodology is
labor-intensive and lacks an efficient means of using product-specific
data to identify potentially non-compliant products. CPSC co-locates
staff alongside CBP staff at ports of entry to target shipments for
examination.</p>
<p>Once identified, staff request that CBP place a shipment on hold and
transport it to an examination station for CPSC inspection; an
examination hold creates delay that costs businesses and CPSC time and
money. Accordingly, stakeholders and CPSC have a common interest in
reducing examinations of compliant products and maximizing examinations
of products that are likely to be violative. Currently, certificates are
collected only after a shipment is stopped for examination; certificate
data are not used to target shipments for examination. Using
certificate data for more precise targeting would maximize examination
efficiency for stakeholders and staff.</p>
<p>Using certificate data can also improve CPSC's ability to target
low-value shipments. CPSC's current targeting capabilities were designed
for larger commercial shipments for which the commission receives CBP
data. CPSC's port staff is currently unable to pinpoint with a high
degree of certainty potentially non-compliant and hazardous products in
low-value shipments, which CBP refers to as “de minimis shipments,” and
international mail shipments. </p>
<p>As we all know the de minimis shipments to consumers of batteries
below an $800 value is where we are having a problem with low-quality
batteries. But this new certificates filing rule won't fix the e-bike
battery problem as there is not currently a CPSC standard specifically
regarding batteries and as such no certificate filing will be required.</p>
<p>The biggest issue I see right now is that the SNPR proposes a 120-day
effective date for a final rule. So that means after the comments on
this rule are received, I expect that the rule will be final in less
than six months, and once that happens, there will be another six months
to get ready for the enforcement. Hopefully, that will be enough time
for the industry to get ready.</p>
<p>This is going to be a four-step process for each product: First,
companies need to decide what CPSC rules pertain to their specific
products; second, they need to determine if they are products intended
for kids under 12 (a whole other analysis); third, they need to decide
on a test protocol for their products and whether it can be done in
house or requires a CPSC certified lab (see Step 2); then finally they
need to set up an account with CPSC and learn the methods by which they
have to enter all this data on an ongoing basis and how that data entry
timeline coincides with the timely shipment and receiving of the
product. </p>
<p>Clearly there is lots of work to be done on this by brands. Our
office is going to be assisting clients with this issue going forward as
there are a number of issues that have to be dealt with that are more
legal than scientific or logistical but the latter two issues are surely
ones that must be addressed as well.</p>
<p><em><a href="https://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/profile-of-steven-w-hansen.html">Steven W. Hansen</a>
is an attorney who represents product manufacturers, distributors and
retailers in product liability and other lawsuits and provides
consultation on all matters related to the manufacture and distribution
of e-bikes and other consumer products. For further questions visit<a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/"> www.swhlaw.com</a> or email <a href="mailto:legal.inquiry@swhlaw.com">legal.inquiry@swhlaw.com</a></em></p>
<p dir="ltr"><em> The information in this article is subject to change
and may not be applicable in your state or country. It is intended as a
thought-provoking discussion of general legal principles and does not
constitute legal advice. Any opinions expressed herein are solely those
of the author.</em></p></div></div></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2020 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-28570624411627566012023-12-30T14:43:00.000-08:002023-12-30T14:43:12.689-08:00Proposed changes to California Proposition 65 short form warnings (Jan 3 2024)On October 27, 2023 the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA), the state agency that implements Proposition 65,
introduced its third attempt to amend the “short form” warning
provisions. This has been going on for a few years now but every time
they get ready to amend the regulations they stop short and put it off
for various "reasons". The fourth attempt may be the charm. Comments are
due on the new regulations by <b>January 3 2024.</b> The proposed regulations (and rationale for changes) are <b><a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Sfd0qKGnWc42gfZx49g5OhKJOHsvZiVV/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">here</a></b> and the comment form is <a href="https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/comments/comment-submissions-notice-proposed-rulemaking-and-announcement-public" target="_blank"><b>here.</b> </a>However
I am gathering commitments from companies for our office to write a
collective letter on all their behalves (so that they remain anonymous
to the agency). Please email me if you wish to join in out letter. The
main problem with the proposed amendments is that OEHHA does not like
the fact that manufacturers and distributors are defaulting to the use
of the short form warning in order to escape the dragnet of plaintiff's
lawsuits that are impossible to cost effectively defeat. OEHHA wants to
force companies to have to run very costly tests on
hundreds of potential chemicals (many not testable) so that they can
list the chemical(s) in the warning text before they can use the safe
harbor short form warning. Think of it as sort of a "penalty" for using the short form. All the arguments they make for this change
are fallacious arguments. They don't like all the short form warnings
being used as they feel its diluting the overall effect of Prop 65. That is not the
industry's problem that's the regulators problem. Their rationales are
comical if it were not so sad and costly for companies to deal with. They are also
proposing some additional "catch all" warnings for motorsports parts
that are just not workable/feasible or cost effective and are NOT going
to make consumers safer at all. This is what we would expect from
bureaucrats who have never worked in the recreational sports business or
any product manufacturing business for that matter. <br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2024 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-68139265177355055192023-07-17T14:34:00.010-07:002023-07-17T16:03:25.927-07:00California bill aims to require drivers licenses for unlicenced users of class three e bikes<p>This <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB530" target="_blank">new bill</a> that appears to have been first proposed in July 2023 looks to prevent children under age 12 from using any class of e bike. For those over 12 they can operate class 1 and 2 e bikes but for class 3 e bikes you must be 16 or older (part of existing law) and posses "the new" class three users license and also wear an approved helmet (part of existing law). Not a completely bad idea but license training and issuance for kids (and adults with no vehicle drivers license) seems like a big challenge in this state where we can hardly manage vehicle drivers licenses (<a href="https://www.kron4.com/news/digital-ids-could-arrive-for-californians-this-spring-heres-how-theyll-work/" target="_blank">digital vehicle licenses</a> were promised Jan 2023 and still have not happened). Specifically the bill states it is the "intent of the Legislature to create an e-bike license program with an online written test and a state-issued photo identification for those persons without a valid driver’s license". So again this is a bit broader than it appears at first blush. It appears the intent of the law is if you don't have a "vehicle" drivers license then you would need to get a "class 3 e bike license" regardless of your age. As I like to say about California we are really good at churning out thousands of new laws every year but we are not so good at implementing and enforcing them. Welcome to California.<br /></p><p></p><p>Another thing to note about the bill is that appears to have been created using a "gut and amend" procedure. This controversial legislative maneuver is when a lawmaker takes an existing bill that has already been approved by several committees or even one house of the Legislature, strips the contents and adds in new unrelated bill language. You can see traces of the old bill in the current bill (one involving natural resources) This procedure has been around for years and is typically done when new legislation is desired but the window to submit a new bill has passed. Its also used for more troubling tactics <a href="https://sr21.senate.ca.gov/content/time-end-gut-and-amend-process" target="_blank">as noted here.</a> These bills can end up being sneaky and hard to track.</p><p></p><p>It will be interesting to see if this gets any traction. Most bills don't make it thru the full legislative session. All bills must be approved by Sept 14 2023 or they die. Then you have the veto process and Governor Newsom does Veto quite a few bills that don't fit with his agenda. That is in Oct.</p><p></p><p>Stay tuned to this page for updates on this proposed legislation.<br />
<br />
</p><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2020 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-16720585109748276332023-07-08T16:32:00.002-07:002023-07-08T16:36:33.010-07:00Congress tries to force CPSC to create mandatory standards for lithium batteries under the "Setting Consumer Standards for Lithium-Ion Batteries Act” introduced in March 2023<p><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><span class="lbexSectionlevelOLC">As we all know CPSC has been trying for force manufactures of e bikes and other related mobility devices to use existing UL standards in the manufacture of these devices. The worst offenders will of course ignore <a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2023/CPSC-Calls-on-Manufacturers-to-Comply-with-Safety-Standards-for-Battery-Powered-Products-to-Reduce-the-Risk-of-Injury-and-Death" target="_blank">these polite non binding requests</a>. We also know the CPSC is going to have a <a href="https://www.swhlaw.com/2023/06/cpsc-lithium-ion-battery-safety-notice.html" target="_blank">meeting in July 2023</a> to "discuss" batteries but we really are not sure what will come of such meeting(s). In the past the CPSC has resisted calls to create mandatory standards when in their opinion a voluntary standard seems to be solving the problem. (see <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2021-title15/html/USCODE-2021-title15-chap47-sec2058.htm" target="_blank">15 USC 2058</a>) Many <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/07/e-bike-battery-lithium-ion-fire/674622/" target="_blank">have argued</a> the voluntary UL standards are not working as adherence to them is low and only done by high end manufacturers. So Congress has stepped in </span></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><span class="lbexSectionlevelOLC">under Senate bill 1008 introduced in March 2023. </span></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><span class="lbexSectionlevelOLC"> (in the same way they did to force the CPSC to create the massively confusing lead laws and related laws under CPSIA in 2008) Stay tuned to this blog for updates on the status of this bill.<br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><span class="lbexSectionlevelOLC"><b>Senate Bill 1008 (March 2023) (related bill HR 1797)<br /></b></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><span class="lbexSectionlevelOLC">SECTION 1.</span> <span class="lbexSectionlevelOLC"> <span class="lbexAllcap">Short title</span>.</span></span></p><div class="lbexIndent" style="text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">This Act may be cited as the “Setting Consumer Standards for Lithium-Ion Batteries Act”. </span></p></div><p class="lbexHangWithMargin" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><a id="H1A2DD960958842FDA1E0A1575ACE9C08"> </a><span class="lbexSectionlevelOLC">SEC. 2. </span><span class="lbexSectionlevelOLC"> <span class="lbexAllcap">Consumer product safety standard for certain batteries</span>.</span></span></p><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><a id="HF740125407FE4804974FCDCB90810146"> </a></span><div class="deep-link" tabindex="0"><p class="lbexIndent HF740125407FE4804974FCDCB90810146-content" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">(a) <span class="lbexSectionLevelOLCnuclear">Consumer product safety standard required</span>.—Not
later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Consumer Product Safety Commission shall promulgate, under section 553
of title 5, United States Code, a final consumer product safety standard
for rechargeable lithium-ion batteries used in micromobility devices
within the jurisdiction of the Commission, including electric bicycles
and electric scooters, to protect against the risk of fires caused by
such batteries.</span></p></div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><a id="H251904E3D6E14DED82337DFC6EF32557"> </a></span><div class="deep-link" tabindex="0"><p class="lbexIndent H251904E3D6E14DED82337DFC6EF32557-content" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">(b) <span class="lbexSectionLevelOLCnuclear">CPSC determination of scope</span>.—The
Consumer Product Safety Commission shall specify the types of
rechargeable lithium-ion batteries and the types of micromobility
devices within the jurisdiction of the Commission that are within the
scope of subsection (a) as part of a standard promulgated under this
section, as reasonably necessary to protect against the risk of fires
caused by rechargeable lithium-ion batteries in consumer products.</span></p></div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;"><a id="H396BF256568F43428AEBD47A5EE30C1C"> </a></span><p class="lbexIndent H396BF256568F43428AEBD47A5EE30C1C-content" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: medium;">(c) <span class="lbexSectionLevelOLCnuclear">Treatment of standard</span>.—A
consumer product safety standard promulgated under subsection (a) shall
be treated as a consumer product safety rule promulgated under section 9
of the Consumer Product Safety Act (<a href="http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:15%20section:2058%20edition:prelim)" target="_blank">15 U.S.C. 2058</a>).</span>
</p><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2023 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-60789944954043880382023-06-05T21:19:00.006-07:002023-08-01T10:42:32.668-07:00CPSC Lithium-Ion Battery Safety; Notice of Meeting on July 27 2023 and Request for Comments <p><span dir="ltr" face="sans-serif" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*12.00px); left: 23.36%; top: 25.72%; transform: scaleX(0.921728);"><b>UPDATE 8/1/23:</b> Today I received a <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/07/27/2023-14554/semiannual-regulatory-agenda" target="_blank">Federal Register notice</a> of the CPSC's "Semiannual Regulatory Agenda" just days after the meeting below. What stands out to me is that this document "...</span>includes an agenda of regulations that the Commission expects to <i><b>develop</b></i> or review during the <b><i>next 12 months</i></b>.<span dir="ltr" face="sans-serif" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*12.00px); left: 23.36%; top: 25.72%; transform: scaleX(0.921728);">" and there is no mention or reference at all in this very long document about ebikes, lithium batteries, bicycles or 16 CFR part 1512 (the bicycle and e bike regulation). Again these come out twice a year and we know that Congress is pushing CPSC to regulate ebikes via <a href="https://www.swhlaw.com/2023/07/congress-tries-to-force-cpsc-to-create.html" target="_blank">this bill</a> but I don't thinks its likely that there will be anything significant happening at CPSC re batteries or ebikes until this bill passes. I might be wrong but I don't think anyone should be holding their breath in the next 12 mo for some regulations coming forth from the CPSC on the issues in the meeting referenced below. The proposed de minimus bill (<a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/4148/text" target="_blank">H.R.4148 - Import Security and Fairness Act </a>118th Congress (2023-2024)) may also help the battery import situation well before CPSC acts.<br /></span></p><p><b>Prior Post June 5 2023:</b><br /></p><p><span dir="ltr" face="sans-serif" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*12.00px); left: 23.36%; top: 25.72%; transform: scaleX(0.921728);">The Consumer Product Safety Commission will be holding a meeting on lithium-</span><span dir="ltr" face="sans-serif" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*12.00px); left: 11.76%; top: 29.2%; transform: scaleX(0.927619);">ion battery safety, with a specific focus on fires occurring in e-bikes and other micro-mobility </span><span dir="ltr" face="sans-serif" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*12.00px); left: 11.76%; top: 32.69%; transform: scaleX(0.910934);">products as well as the fire risks that may arise with the growing consumer market for other </span><span dir="ltr" face="sans-serif" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*12.00px); left: 11.76%; top: 36.17%; transform: scaleX(0.911604);">products containing such batteries. They are inviting interested parties to participate in or attend the </span><span dir="ltr" face="sans-serif" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*12.00px); left: 11.76%; top: 39.66%; transform: scaleX(0.936372);">meeting. A remote viewing option will be available for registrants. CPSC also invites interested </span><span dir="ltr" face="sans-serif" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*12.00px); left: 11.76%; top: 43.14%; transform: scaleX(0.900073);">parties to submit written comments related to the issues discussed <a href="https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2023-11981.pdf" target="_blank">in the notice.</a></span></p><p><span dir="ltr" face="sans-serif" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*12.00px); left: 11.76%; top: 43.14%; transform: scaleX(0.900073);">There was allegedly going to be broader rulemaking announced on human powered bikes and or all of 16 CFR part 1512 as well but that notice has not yet appeared. <a href="https://www.bicycleretailer.com/industry-news/2023/05/23/cpsc-considers-creating-new-bike-safety-requirements" target="_blank">That story</a> appeared in Bicycle Retailer. It is not clear if this current notice is related to the notice discussed in Bicycle Retailer<br /></span></p><p><span dir="ltr" face="sans-serif" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*12.00px); left: 17.65%; top: 81.47%; transform: scaleX(0.917396);">If you wish to submit written comments for the record, you may do so before or after the </span><span dir="ltr" face="sans-serif" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*12.00px); left: 11.76%; top: 84.96%; transform: scaleX(0.890325);">meeting, as described in the</span><span dir="ltr" face="sans-serif" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*12.00px); left: 33.6%; top: 84.96%;"> </span><span dir="ltr" face="sans-serif" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*12.00px); left: 34.09%; top: 84.96%; transform: scaleX(0.955401);">ADDRESSES</span><span dir="ltr" face="sans-serif" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*12.00px); left: 45.64%; top: 84.96%;"> </span><span dir="ltr" face="sans-serif" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*12.00px); left: 46.13%; top: 84.96%; transform: scaleX(0.920781);">section of the notice. These written comments </span><span dir="ltr" face="sans-serif" role="presentation" style="font-size: calc(var(--scale-factor)*12.00px); left: 11.76%; top: 88.44%; transform: scaleX(0.90918);">should be received by no later than August 21, 2023. Please refer to the notice for the topics that the CPSC would like to see addressed.</span><br />
<br />
</p><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright |</span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"> <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-9187046117138955582022-12-28T10:00:00.005-08:002022-12-28T10:01:22.223-08:00Class three (3) e bikes in CA now must be specifically prohibited on an equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail.<p>I am not sure why or who (outside the legislature) initiated this California bill in Feb. 2022. The purpose is to allow class 3 bikes anywhere a class 1 or 2 bike is allowed by default. Unless of course the city or the county (or some other CA state local jurisdiction) disallow class 1, 2 or 3 bikes on some specific path or area under their control. I think the intent here here is that the Legislature assumed that most local entities wont take any action on this unless there is a real problem locally. Like Del Mar CA as an example. I do not think allowing class 3 on class 1 bike paths (and other places) was the intent of the original model legislation passed around by People for Bikes. This also raises more issues with respect to class 3 classification jurisdiction as has been raised by the US Consumer Product Protection Agency (CPSC) lately. FYI the reference to "motorized bicycle" below in pink means basically a moped like device that does not go over 30 mph. <a href="https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/handbook/motorcycle-handbook/two-wheel-vehicle-operation/" target="_blank">See details here</a> (CCV sec 406) So the legislature at least smartly preserved that exception. However I don't see much difference between a moped and class 3 devices functionally or speed wise and quite frankly the ebikes on the class 1 bikeways I see now likely do not even meet CA class 3 requirements. I really DON'T think class 3 ebikes are appropriate on Class 1 bikeways (those completely separate and not near roads) but quite frankly nothing has been done to enforce or even post the existing law on most class 1 bike paths in CA to date so I don't see this as having much of an effect.</p><p>[ Approved by CA Governor September 16, 2022. Filed with Secretary of State September 16, 2022. ]<br />LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST</p><p></p><p>[swh note: I have left in the red and blue original editing in the bill markups]<br /></p><p></p><p></p><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;"><span id="subject">AB 1909, as amended, Friedman.
Vehicles: bicycle omnibus bill.</span></div><span id="digesttext"><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">Existing
law generally regulates the operation of bicycles upon a highway. A
violation of these provisions, generally, is punishable as an
infraction.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(1) Existing law
prohibits the operation of a <span style="color: #ff00fe;">motorized bicycle</span> or a <span style="color: #ff00fe;">class 3 electric
bicycle</span> on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane, equestrian
trail, or hiking or recreational trail, as specified. Existing law
authorizes a local authority to additionally prohibit the operation of
class 1 and class 2 electric bicycles on these facilities.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">This bill would remove the prohibition of class 3 electric bicycles on these facilities and<span style="color: #b30000;"><strike>
would remove the authority of a local jurisdiction to prohibit class 1
and class 2 electric bicycles on these facilities. The bill</strike></span>
would instead authorize a local authority to prohibit the operation of<span style="color: #b30000;"><strike> a class 3</strike></span><span class="blue_text" style="color: blue;"><i> any</i></span> electric bicycle<span style="color: #b30000;"><strike> at a motor-assisted speed greater than 20 miles per hour.</strike></span><span class="blue_text" style="color: blue;"><i> or any class of electric bicycle on an equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail.</i></span></div></span><div class="ActionLine" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;"><h3 style="display: inline; font-weight: bold;">SECTION 1.</h3> Section 21207.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:</div><p></p><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;"><h6 style="display: inline;">21207.5.</h6> (a) Notwithstanding
Sections 21207 and 23127 of this code, or any other law, a motorized
bicycle shall not be operated on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway,
bicycle lane established pursuant to Section 21207, equestrian trail, or
hiking or recreational trail, unless it is within or adjacent to a
roadway or unless the local authority or the governing body of a public
agency having jurisdiction over the path or trail permits, by ordinance,
that operation.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(b) The local
authority or governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction over
an equestrian trail, or hiking or recreational trail, may prohibit, by
ordinance, the operation of an electric bicycle or any class of electric
bicycle on that trail.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(c) The
Department of Parks and Recreation may prohibit the operation of an
electric bicycle or any class of electric bicycle on any bicycle path or
trail within the department’s jurisdiction.</div><p><br />
<br />
<br />
</p><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2020 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-15821121816450954082022-05-14T16:24:00.000-07:002022-05-14T16:24:37.406-07:00Why interoffice emails that discuss potential product issues are a long term land mine for businesses<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:RelyOnVML/>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object
classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">While not strictly a product
liability action but a Song Beverly Warranty action available to vehicle buyers
in CA, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Bowser v Ford Motor Co</i>. (May
2022) exemplifies the problems with “bad” internal company emails being created
as well as long threads which loop different people in and out of the thread
and even loop in parties outside the corporate entity. Needless to say email is
very dangerous when not used properly and our office counsels clients all the
time on best practices for ensuring that internal emails do not end up becoming
an damning exhibit in a case against them or even another company. These days
very often employees want to text, chat or email a free flowing “discussion”
which really should be conducted on the phone or conference call. Failing to
heed that one simple rule creates lots of headaches down the road that cannot
be “undone”. Keeping outside legal counsel active in the thread discussion of
the “issue” goes a long way to defeating claims of admissibility. But there are
also limits to that practice as well which is the subject of another posting.
Using social media of course is even worse than email and this article only
address internal company emails (not communications outside the company). We
are also not delving into the courts discussion of the depositions used against
Ford that were taken in another action as that is another long analysis for
another post (and most entities do not run into that situation as often as the
email problem). The decision (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Bowser v
Ford Motor Co</i>.; decision issued May 2022) is a great read however it is 83
pages long. It is available <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/11I0A6lOt0sA0hMaoM-8jze3TvRrSgH76/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">here</a>. <br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">I quote liberally from the
decision below but of course I have only taken out the essential parts of the
ruling at issue here and tried to ensure clarity and continuity in the relevant
portions of the decision. <br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The purchase price of the
2006 Ford truck in question was $43,084.68. Mr. Bowser (the plaintiff) reviewed
literature at the dealership that said “the Ford Super Duty [was] the best in
class, having the best performance, highest quality.” <br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Over Ford’s objections, the
Bowsers introduced a number of internal Ford emails and presentations. These
showed that Ford was aware that certain parts of the 6.0L engine, including
fuel injectors, turbochargers, and EGR valves, were failing at excessive rates,
and that Ford was struggling to find the root cause of some of these failures.
Some of the emails said that this information should be kept secret. <br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The Bowsers sued Ford,
asserting causes of action under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ.
Code, § 1790 et seq. [Song-Beverly or Song-Beverly Act]) and for common-law
fraud. Ford conceded liability under the Song-Beverly Act. A jury found for the
Bowsers on all causes of action. It awarded compensatory damages ($42,310.17
under the Song-Beverly Act; $43,084.68 for fraud), $84,620.34 as a statutory
penalty under the Song-Beverly Act, and $253,861.02 in punitive damages. The
Bowsers elected to recover compensatory damages under the Song-Beverly Act
rather than for fraud. The trial court awarded them $836,528.12 in attorney
fees plus $94,264.99 in costs. <br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Ford appealed. It contended
that the trial court erred by admitting the internal Ford documents, because
they were inadmissible hearsay. <br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The Bowsers introduced a
number of internal Ford emails and presentations (I am only highlighting a few
for the purposes of showing the efforts to keep them secret): <br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">In one email in the chain,
dated May 29, 2002 <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">(note how hold this
email is),</b> Freese noted that the turbocharger of a test vehicle had failed.
There were “[n]ew concerns” about “loose injectors.” <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">He requested a “[r]oot [c]ause [d]efinition,” a “[c]ontainment [p]lan,”
and a “[c]orrective action plan.”</b> <br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Exhibit 42 was an email
chain dated November 2002 sent by Steven Henderson. Henderson’s title was Power Train Purchasing
Manager. He said, “[W]e’re in the middle of 6.0L launch, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">and . . . things are not going well</b>. J1 was delayed a full week for
[Navistar] to work on the issues, but they are not fully resolved yet.” <br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Exhibit 47 was an email
chain including a September 2004 email sent by Frank Ligon. Ligon’s title was
Director of the Customer Service Division. He said Ford was “putting together a
comprehensive strategy to bring all 6.0 up to standard.” “We are <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">seeing a new group of concerns</b> that
range from chaffing [sic] of various wire harnesses causing drivability
concerns, sensors that are failing at a high rate and turbo concerns.” “At this
point we do not have a definitive repair action . . . to properly address the
concern universe.” <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">“Bottom line is we
are not ‘out of the woods’ on this 6.0</b> and in fact may experience repeat
symptoms once certain repairs are performed . . . .” <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">The email was marked “privileged and confidential.” It added, “This is
very confidential!!!” “I strongly urge that this information NOT be shared at
this time until the ‘official’ action is announced.”</b></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"> <br /></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Exhibit 198 was a <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">PowerPoint-style presentation</b> dated February
2006. No author was indicated. It was entitled, “ITEC and Large Diesel Strategy
Review.” <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">It was labeled, “Ford secret
draft.”</b></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"> <br /></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">Exhibit 64 was an email
chain dated February 2006 sent by Koszewnik. It said, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">“FYI only. Don’t forward or reference.”</b></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial;"> <br /></span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The court addressed the
hearsay objections to the emails (those above and many others) as follows: <br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">There is a hearsay exception
for a statement by the opposing party: “Evidence of a statement is not made
inadmissible by the hearsay rule when offered against the declarant in an
action to which he is a party . . . .” (Evid. Code, § 1220.) A corporation,
however, can speak only through its officers and agents (employees included in
“agent”). Accordingly, statements assertedly made by a corporation are not
usually analyzed as party admissions under Evidence Code section 1220, but
rather as authorized admissions under Evidence Code section 1222. <br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The court held “an assertion
made by an agent in the course and scope of the agent’s employment, when
offered against the principal by a party-opponent, no matter to whom the
assertion was addressed.” California
cases also hold that a statement by one employee to another was an authorized
admission of the employer. It need only be shown that the agent’s statement
“concerned a matter within the scope of the declarant’s employment and was made
before that relationship was terminated.” <br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">“Whatever is said by an
agent . . . , either in the making of a contract for his principal, or at the
time, and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">accompanying the performance
of any act, within the scope of his authority, . </b>. . of the particular
contract or transaction in which he is then engaged, is, in legal effect, said
by his principal, and admissible as evidence . .” Also when based on evidence
of the declarant’s duties and responsibilities, it can apply to lower-ranking
agents. <br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">“In general, the
determination requires an examination of the nature of the employee’s usual and
customary authority, the nature of the statement in relation to that authority,
and the particular relevance or purpose of the statement. A statement is
“admissible as an authorized admission only where a proper foundation has been
laid as to the declarant’s authorization to speak on behalf of the party
against whom the statement is offered.” <br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">The once concession made to
Ford, (which did not really help them) was “The declarations of an [alleged]
agent (employee) are not admissible to prove the fact of his agency or the
extent of his power as such agent. [Citations.]”. “Hearsay statements in the
documents themselves cannot be used to prove that they were authorized
admissions.” For example, the fact that Koszewnik’s email signature described
him as “Director, North American Diesel” cannot be used to prove that he <i>actually
was </i>Ford’s Director of North American Diesel. <br /></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Arial;">So clearly 20 year old
emails in this case were a problem for Ford. The other problem is that email
tends to exist on servers outside of your control and has backup and retention
policies that don’t align with your company’s own policy. So think twice before
sending that email to someone else in the company. Should you pick up the phone
first rather then later on write a “better” less inflammatory open ended no
resolution email?</span><br /></p>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2022 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-25080343058551043672022-02-12T15:54:00.001-08:002022-02-12T15:55:41.554-08:00Problem Solved ! AB-1946 Electric bicycles: safety and training program. (Calif 2022)<p>The California legislature likes to do three things (1) spend money on government initiatives/programs (spend on yourself I call it) (2) create as many rules and laws as possible to make it look like the legislature is "fixing" a "problem" or solving a "need" (3) do these things in a way that makes nothing mandatory but yet allows the state to spend lots of money doing "something" usually at 10x the cost of what the private sector would spend. In the end it accomplished nothing but at least you can campaign on it (even if it does not pass you can say you voted for it). The bill below meets all three characteristics. Putting up a website that no one even knows about is not going to make e-bike riders safer or better riders. Properly posting the signs and rules on trails and paths and the ENFORCING those rules would go a long way but alas that requires way too much work. Better to just put up a website. Does the state not recall (or know of) People for Bikes website? They have pretty much done all the work. Will the bike industry agree with what the <span id="digesttext">CA "Office of Traffic Safety" is going to write as far as "guidelines"? Does it even matter?</span></p><p><span id="digesttext"></span></p><p><span id="digesttext">We will try to keep posting on this as it evolves. Watch this space.<br /></span></p><p><span id="bill_house_num"></span></p><div style="float: left; font-weight: bold; width: 50%;"><span style="text-align: left; text-transform: uppercase; width: 50%;"><b>
Assembly Bill
</b></span></div><div style="float: right; text-align: right; width: 50%;"><span style="text-transform: uppercase;"><b>No. 1946</b></span></div><p></p><hr /><br clear="all" /><div align="center"><table align="center" cellspacing="0" role="presentation" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><tbody><tr><td align="center" id="bill_authors"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Introduced by Assembly Member Boerner Horvath<br /></span></td></tr><tr><td align="center" class="textcenter" id="bill_intro_date"><br />February 10, 2022</td></tr></tbody></table></div><hr /><br clear="all" /><div id="title"><span style="font-size: 0.9em; font-weight: normal;">
An act to add Article 4 (commencing with Section 893) to Chapter 8 of
Division 1 of the Streets and Highways Code, relating to electric
bicycles. </span></div><div align="center"><h2>LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST<br /></h2></div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;"><span id="subject">AB 1946, as introduced, Boerner Horvath.
Electric bicycles: safety and training program.</span></div><div><span id="digesttext"><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">Existing
law, the Protected Bikeways Act of 2014, provides that the state’s
bicycle programs have not been fully developed or funded. Existing law
requires the Department of Transportation to develop safety standards in
connection with the use of bicycles, including the establishment of
minimum safety design criteria for the planning and construction of
specified types of bikeways and roadways where bicycle travel is
permitted.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">This bill would require
the department, in coordination with the Office of Traffic Safety, to
develop, on or before September 1, 2023, statewide safety standards and
training programs based on evidence-based practices for users of
electric bicycles, as defined, including, but not limited to, general
electric bicycle riding safety, emergency maneuver skills, rules of the
road, and laws pertaining to electronic bicycles. The
bill would require the safety standards and training programs to be
developed in collaboration with relevant stakeholders and to be posted
on the internet websites of both the department and the Office of
Traffic Safety.</div></span></div><span class="hidden"><h2>Digest Key</h2></span><span id="vote">
Vote:
<span style="text-transform: lowercase;">MAJORITY</span> </span><span id="appropriation">
Appropriation:
<span style="text-transform: lowercase;">NO</span> </span><span id="fiscalcommittee">
Fiscal Committee:
<span style="text-transform: lowercase;">YES</span> </span><span id="localprogram">
Local Program:
<span style="text-transform: lowercase;">NO</span> </span><hr /><span class="hidden"><h2>Bill Text</h2></span><div style="text-transform: uppercase;"><h2 style="text-align: left;">The people of the State of California do enact as follows:</h2><br /></div><div class="ActionLine" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;"><h3 style="display: inline; font-weight: bold;">SECTION 1.</h3> Article 4 (commencing with Section 893) is added to Chapter 8 of Division 1 of the Streets and Highways Code, to read:</div><div id="id_E3332D20-ECA4-48C4-915C-0CF939C2ACFA"><div><h5 style="text-align: left;">
Article
4. Electric Bicycle Safety and Training</h5></div></div><div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;"><h6 style="display: inline;">893.</h6> As used in this article, “electric bicycle” has the meaning provided in Section 312.5 of the Vehicle Code.</div></div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;"><h6 style="display: inline;">894.</h6> (a) The
department, in coordination with the Office of Traffic Safety, shall
develop, on or before September 1, 2023, statewide safety standards and
training programs based on evidence-based practices for users of
electric bicycles, including, but not limited to, general electric
bicycle riding safety, emergency maneuver skills, rules of the road, and
laws pertaining to electronic bicycles.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(b) The safety standards and training programs shall be developed in collaboration with relevant stakeholders.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(c) The
safety standards and training programs shall be posted on the internet
websites of both the department and the Office of Traffic Safety on or
before September 1,
2023.</div><p><br />
<br />
<br />
</p><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2020 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-12755300542823759832021-12-01T12:13:00.001-08:002021-12-01T12:13:31.579-08:00full text of the California e bike law (AB 1096) that was signed into law in October 2015 that governs the use of e bike on California roadways<p>Our readers have requested that we post the full text of the California e bike law that was signed into law in October 2015 that governs the use of e bike on California roadways and some bike paths. Again please check individual vehicle code sections to insure that changes have not been made since this bill was issued in October 2015.</p><p></p><p><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:RelyOnVML/>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object
classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--></p><p>
</p><p class="MsoNormal">Assembly Bill No. 1096 <br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">An act to amend Sections 406, 12804.9, 21113, 21207.5, and 24016
of, and to add Sections 312.5 and 21213 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to
vehicles. <br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">[ Approved by Governor<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>October 07, 2015. Filed with Secretary of State<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>October 07, 2015. ]</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST <br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">AB 1096, Chiu. Vehicles: electric bicycles.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Existing law defines a “motorized bicycle” or a “moped” as a
2-wheeled or 3-wheeled device having fully operative pedals for propulsion by
human power, or having no pedals if powered solely by electrical energy, and an
automatic transmission and motor, as specified.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Existing law also defines a “motorized bicycle” as a device
that has fully operative pedals for propulsion by human power and has an
electric motor that meets specified requirements. Existing law requires a
motorized bicycle, as described by this definition, to comply with specified
equipment and manufacturing requirements. Existing law also imposes specified
requirements relating to the operation of bicycles. A violation of the Vehicle
Code is a crime.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This bill would delete the latter definition of a “motorized
bicycle.” The bill would define an “electric bicycle” as a bicycle with fully
operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts, and would create
3 classes of electric bicycles, as specified. The bill would require manufacturers
or distributors of electric bicycles to affix a label to each electric bicycle
that describes its classification number, top assisted speed, and motor
wattage. The bill would require every electric bicycle manufacturer to certify
that it complies with specified equipment and manufacturing requirements. The
bill would also require an electric bicycle to operate in a manner so that the
electric motor disengages or stops functioning when brakes are applied, or in a
manner so that the release or activation of a switch or other mechanism
disengages or stops the electric motor from functioning.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The bill would require a person riding an electric bicycle
to comply with the above-described requirements relating to the operation of
bicycles. The bill would prohibit persons under 16 years of age from operating
a class 3 electric bicycle. The bill would also require persons operating, or
riding upon, a class 3 electric bicycle to wear a helmet, as specified. The
bill would prohibit the operation of a class 3 electric bicycle on specified
paths, lanes, or trail, unless that operation is authorized by a local
ordinance. The bill would also authorize a local authority or governing body to
prohibit, by ordinance, the operation of class 1 or class 2 electric bicycles
on specified paths or trail. The bill would prohibit a person from tampering
with or modifying an electric bicycle to change its speed capability, unless he
or she appropriately replaces the classification label. The bill would specify
that a person operating an electric bicycle is not subject to financial
responsibility, driver’s license, registration, or license plate requirements.
The bill would also make conforming changes.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section
21113 of the Vehicle Code proposed by AB 604 that would become operative only
if this bill and AB 604 are both chaptered, and this bill is chaptered last.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Because the bill would create new requirements regarding
electric bicycles, the violation of which would be a crime, the bill would
impose a state-mandated local program.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by
this act for a specified reason.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Digest Key</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Vote: MAJORITY<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Appropriation: NO<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fiscal
Committee: YES<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Local Program: YES<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Bill Text</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The people of the State of California do enact as follows:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">SECTION 1. Section 312.5 is added to the Vehicle Code, to
read:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">312.5. (a) An “electric bicycle” is a bicycle equipped with
fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(1) A “class 1 electric bicycle,” or “low-speed
pedal-assisted electric bicycle,” is a bicycle equipped with a motor that
provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide
assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(2) A “class 2 electric bicycle,” or “low-speed throttle-assisted
electric bicycle,” is a bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used
exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing
assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(3) A “class 3 electric bicycle,” or “speed pedal-assisted
electric bicycle,” is a bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance
only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the
bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour, and equipped with a speedometer.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(b) A person riding an electric bicycle, as defined in this
section, is subject to Article 4 (commencing with Section 21200) of Chapter 1
of Division 11.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(c) On and after January 1, 2017, manufacturers and
distributors of electric bicycles shall apply a label that is permanently
affixed, in a prominent location, to each electric bicycle. The label shall
contain the classification number, top assisted speed, and motor wattage of the
electric bicycle, and shall be printed in Arial font in at least 9-point type. <br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">SEC. 2. Section 406 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read: <br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">406. (a) A “motorized bicycle” or “moped” is a two-wheeled
or three-wheeled device having fully operative pedals for propulsion by human
power, or having no pedals if powered solely by electrical energy, and an
automatic transmission and a motor that produces less than 4 gross brake
horsepower and is capable of propelling the device at a maximum speed of not
more than 30 miles per hour on level ground.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(b) Every manufacturer of a motorized bicycle or moped, as
defined in this section, shall provide a disclosure to buyers that advises
buyers that their existing insurance policies may not provide coverage for
these bicycles and that they should contact their insurance company or insurance
agent to determine if coverage is provided. The disclosure shall meet both of
the following requirements:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(1) The disclosure shall be printed in not less than
14-point boldface type on a single sheet of paper that contains no information
other than the disclosure.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(2) The disclosure shall include the following language in
capital letters: <br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“YOUR INSURANCE POLICIES MAY NOT PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR
ACCIDENTS INVOLVING THE USE OF THIS BICYCLE. TO DETERMINE IF COVERAGE IS
PROVIDED YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY OR AGENT.”</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> SEC. 3. Section 12804.9 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read: <br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">12804.9. (a) (1) The examination shall include all of the
following:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(A) A test of the applicant’s knowledge and understanding of
the provisions of this code governing the operation of vehicles upon the
highways.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(B) A test of the applicant’s ability to read and understand
simple English used in highway traffic and directional signs.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(C) A test of the applicant’s understanding of traffic signs
and signals, including the bikeway signs, markers, and traffic control devices
established by the Department of Transportation.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(D) An actual demonstration of the applicant’s ability to
exercise ordinary and reasonable control in operating a motor vehicle by
driving it under the supervision of an examining officer. The applicant shall
submit to an examination appropriate to the type of motor vehicle or
combination of vehicles he or she desires a license to drive, except that the
department may waive the driving test part of the examination for any applicant
who submits a license issued by another state, territory, or possession of the
United States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico if
the department verifies through any acknowledged national driver record data
source that there are no stops, holds, or other impediments to its issuance.
The examining officer may request to see evidence of financial responsibility
for the vehicle prior to supervising the demonstration of the applicant’s
ability to operate the vehicle. The examining officer may refuse to examine an
applicant who is unable to provide proof of financial responsibility for the
vehicle, unless proof of financial responsibility is not required by this code.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(E) A test of the hearing and eyesight of the applicant, and
of other matters that may be necessary to determine the applicant’s mental and
physical fitness to operate a motor vehicle upon the highways, and whether any
grounds exist for refusal of a license under this code.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(2) (A) Before a class A or class B driver’s license, or
class C driver’s license with a commercial endorsement, may be issued or
renewed, the applicant shall have in his or her driver record a valid report of
a medical examination of the applicant given not more than two years prior to
the date of the application by a health care professional. As used in this paragraph,
“health care professional” means a person who is licensed, certified, or
registered in accordance with applicable state laws and regulations to practice
medicine and perform physical examinations in the United States. Health care
professionals are doctors of medicine, doctors of osteopathy, physician
assistants, and registered advanced practice nurses, or doctors of chiropractic
who are clinically competent to perform the medical examination presently
required of motor carrier drivers by the United States Department of
Transportation. The report shall be on a form approved by the department. In
establishing the requirements, consideration may be given to the standards
presently required of motor carrier drivers by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(B) The department may accept a federal waiver of one or
more physical qualification standards if the waiver is accompanied by a report
of a nonqualifying medical examination for a class A or class B driver’s
license, or class C driver’s license with a commercial endorsement, pursuant to
Section 391.41(a)(3)(ii) of Subpart E of Part 391 of Title 49 of the Code of
Federal Regulations.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(3) A physical defect of the applicant that, in the opinion
of the department, is compensated for to ensure safe driving ability, shall not
prevent the issuance of a license to the applicant.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(b) In accordance with the following classifications, an
applicant for a driver’s license shall be required to submit to an examination
appropriate to the type of motor vehicle or combination of vehicles the
applicant desires a license to drive:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(1) Class A includes the following:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (H) of paragraph (3),
a combination of vehicles, if a vehicle being towed has a gross vehicle weight
rating or gross vehicle weight of more than 10,000 pounds.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(B) A vehicle towing more than one vehicle.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(C) A trailer bus.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(D) The operation of all vehicles under class B and class C.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(2) Class B includes the following:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (H) of paragraph (3),
a single vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of
more than 26,000 pounds.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(B) A single vehicle with three or more axles, except any
three-axle vehicle weighing less than 6,000 pounds.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(C) A bus with a gross vehicle weight rating or gross
vehicle weight of more than 26,000 pounds, except a trailer bus.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(D) A farm labor vehicle.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(E) A single vehicle with three or more axles or a gross
vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of more than 26,000 pounds towing
another vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating or gross vehicle weight of
10,000 pounds or less.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(F) A house car over 40 feet in length, excluding safety
devices and safety bumpers.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(G) The operation of all vehicles covered under class C.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(3) Class C includes the following:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(A) A two-axle vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating or
gross vehicle weight of 26,000 pounds or less, including when the vehicle is
towing a trailer or semitrailer with a gross vehicle weight rating or gross
vehicle weight of 10,000 pounds or less.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), a two-axle vehicle
weighing 4,000 pounds or more unladen when towing a trailer coach not exceeding
9,000 pounds gross.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(C) A house car of 40 feet in length or less.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(D) A three-axle vehicle weighing 6,000 pounds gross or
less.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(E) A house car of 40 feet in length or less or a vehicle
towing another vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or
less, including when a tow dolly is used. A person driving a vehicle may not
tow another vehicle in violation of Section 21715.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(F) (i) A two-axle vehicle weighing 4,000 pounds or more
unladen when towing either a trailer coach or a fifth-wheel travel trailer not
exceeding 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating, when the towing of the
trailer is not for compensation.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(ii) A two-axle vehicle weighing 4,000 pounds or more
unladen when towing a fifth-wheel travel trailer exceeding 10,000 pounds, but
not exceeding 15,000 pounds, gross vehicle weight rating, when the towing of
the trailer is not for compensation, and if the person has passed a specialized
written examination provided by the department relating to the knowledge of
this code and other safety aspects governing the towing of recreational
vehicles upon the highway.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The authority to operate combinations of vehicles under this
subparagraph may be granted by endorsement on a class C license upon completion
of that written examination.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(G) A vehicle or combination of vehicles with a gross
combination weight rating or a gross vehicle weight rating, as those terms are
defined in subdivisions (j) and (k), respectively, of Section 15210, of 26,000
pounds or less, if all of the following conditions are met:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(i) Is operated by a farmer, an employee of a farmer, or an
instructor credentialed in agriculture as part of an instructional program in
agriculture at the high school, community college, or university level.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(ii) Is used exclusively in the conduct of agricultural
operations.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(iii) Is not used in the capacity of a for-hire carrier or
for compensation.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(H) Firefighting equipment, provided that the equipment is
operated by a person who holds a firefighter endorsement pursuant to Section
12804.11.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(I) A motorized scooter.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(J) A bus with a gross vehicle weight rating or gross
vehicle weight of 26,000 pounds or less, except a trailer bus.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(K)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Class C does not
include a two-wheel motorcycle or a two-wheel motor-driven cycle.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(4) Class M1. A two-wheel motorcycle or a motor-driven
cycle. Authority to operate a vehicle included in a class M1 license may be
granted by endorsement on a class A, B, or C license upon completion of an
appropriate examination.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(5) (A) Class M2 includes the following:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(i) A motorized bicycle or moped, or a bicycle with an
attached motor, except an electric bicycle as described in subdivision (a) of
Section 312.5.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(ii) A motorized scooter.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(B) Authority to operate vehicles included in class M2 may
be granted by endorsement on a class A, B, or C license upon completion of an
appropriate examination, except that no endorsement is required for a motorized
scooter. Persons holding a class M1 license or endorsement may operate vehicles
included in class M2 without further examination.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(c) A driver’s license or driver certificate is not valid
for operating a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in subdivision (b) of
Section 15210, any other motor vehicle defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of
subdivision (b), or any other vehicle requiring a driver to hold any driver
certificate or any driver’s license endorsement under Section 15275, unless a
medical certificate approved by the department that has been issued within two
years of the date of the operation of that vehicle and a copy of the medical
examination report from which the certificate was issued is on file with the
department. Otherwise, the license is valid only for operating class C vehicles
that are not commercial vehicles, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section
15210, and for operating class M1 or M2 vehicles, if so endorsed, that are not
commercial vehicles, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 15210.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(d) A license or driver certificate issued prior to the
enactment of Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 15200) is valid to operate the
class or type of vehicles specified under the law in existence prior to that
enactment until the license or certificate expires or is otherwise suspended,
revoked, or canceled. Upon application for renewal or replacement of a driver’s
license, endorsement, or certificate required to operate a commercial motor
vehicle, a valid medical certificate on a form approved by the department shall
be submitted to the department.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(e) The department may accept a certificate of driving skill
that is issued by an employer, authorized by the department to issue a
certificate under Section 15250, of the applicant, in lieu of a driving test,
on class A or B applications, if the applicant has first qualified for a class
C license and has met the other examination requirements for the license for
which he or she is applying. The certificate may be submitted as evidence of
the applicant’s skill in the operation of the types of equipment covered by the
license for which he or she is applying.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(f) The department may accept a certificate of competence in
lieu of a driving test on class M1 or M2 applications, when the certificate is
issued by a law enforcement agency for its officers who operate class M1 or M2
vehicles in their duties, if the applicant has met the other examination
requirements for the license for which he or she is applying.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(g) The department may accept a certificate of satisfactory
completion of a novice motorcyclist training program approved by the
commissioner pursuant to Section 2932 in lieu of a driving test on class M1 or
M2 applications, if the applicant has met the other examination requirements
for the license for which he or she is applying. The department shall review
and approve the written and driving test used by a program to determine whether
the program may issue a certificate of completion.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(h) Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a person holding a
valid California
driver’s license of any class may operate a short-term rental motorized bicycle
without taking any special examination for the operation of a motorized
bicycle, and without having a class M2 endorsement on that license. As used in
this subdivision, “short-term” means 48 hours or less.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(i) A person under the age of 21 years shall not be issued a
class M1 or M2 license or endorsement unless he or she provides evidence
satisfactory to the department of completion of a motorcycle safety training
program that is operated pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 2930)
of Chapter 5 of Division 2.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(j) A driver of a vanpool vehicle may operate with a class C
license but shall possess evidence of a medical examination required for a
class B license when operating vanpool vehicles. In order to be eligible to
drive the vanpool vehicle, the driver shall keep in the vanpool vehicle a
statement, signed under penalty of perjury, that he or she has not been
convicted of reckless driving, drunk driving, or a hit-and-run offense in the
last five years. <br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">SEC. 4. Section 21113 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read: <br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">21113. (a) A person shall not drive a vehicle or animal, or
stop, park, or leave standing a vehicle or animal, whether attended or
unattended, upon the driveways, paths, parking facilities, or the grounds of
any public school, state university, state college, unit of the state park
system, county park, municipal airport, rapid transit district, transit
development board, transit district, public transportation agency, county
transportation commission created pursuant to Section 130050 of the Public Utilities
Code, joint powers agency operating or managing a commuter rail system, or any
property under the direct control of the legislative body of a municipality, or
a state, county, or hospital district institution or building, or an
educational institution exempted, in whole or in part, from taxation, or any
harbor improvement district or harbor district formed pursuant to Part 2
(commencing with Section 5800) or Part 3 (commencing with Section 6000) of
Division 8 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, a district organized pursuant to
Part 3 (commencing with Section 27000) of Division 16 of the Streets and
Highways Code, or state grounds served by the Department of the California
Highway Patrol, or any property under the possession or control of a housing authority
formed pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 34240) of Chapter 1 of
Part 2 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code, except with the permission
of, and upon and subject to any condition or regulation that may be imposed by,
the legislative body of the municipality, or the governing board or officer of
the public school, state university, state college, county park, municipal
airport, rapid transit district, transit development board, transit district,
public transportation agency, county transportation commission, joint powers
agency operating or managing a commuter rail system, or state, county, or
hospital district institution or building, or educational institution, or
harbor district, or a district organized pursuant to Part 3 (commencing with
Section 27000) of Division 16 of the Streets and Highways Code, or housing
authority, or the Director of Parks and Recreation regarding units of the state
park system or the state agency with jurisdiction over the grounds served by
the Department of the California Highway Patrol.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(b) A governing board, legislative body, or officer shall
erect or place appropriate signs giving notice of any special conditions or
regulations that are imposed under this section and the governing board,
legislative body, or officer shall also prepare and keep available at the
principal administrative office of the governing board, legislative body, or
officer, for examination by all interested persons, a written statement of all
those special conditions and regulations adopted pursuant to this section. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(c) When a governing board, legislative body, or officer
permits public traffic upon the driveways, paths, parking facilities, or
grounds under their control then, except for those conditions imposed or
regulations enacted by the governing board, legislative body, or officer
applicable to the traffic, all the provisions of this code relating to traffic
upon the highways shall be applicable to the traffic upon the driveways, paths,
parking facilities, or grounds.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(d) A public transportation agency that imposes any
condition or regulation upon a person who parks or leaves standing a vehicle,
pursuant to subdivision (a), is authorized to do either of the following:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(1) Enforce that condition or regulation in the manner
provided in Article 3 (commencing with Section 40200) of Chapter 1 of Division
17 of this code. The public transportation agency shall be considered the
issuing agency for that purpose.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(2) Designate regularly employed and salaried employees, who
are engaged in directing traffic or enforcing parking laws and regulations, for
the purpose of removing any vehicle in the same manner as a city, county, or
jurisdiction of a state agency pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section
22650) of Division 11 of this code.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(e) With respect to the permitted use of vehicles or animals
on property under the direct control of the legislative body of a municipality,
no change in the use of vehicles or animals on the property, that had been
permitted on January 1, 1976, shall be effective unless and until the
legislative body, at a meeting open to the general public, determines that the
use of vehicles or animals on the property should be prohibited or regulated.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(f) A transit development board may adopt ordinances, rules,
or regulations to restrict, or specify the conditions for, the use of bicycles,
motorized bicycles, electric bicycles, skateboards, and roller skates on
property under the control of, or any portion of property used by, the board.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(g) A public agency, including, but not limited to, the
Regents of the University of California and the Trustees of the California State
University, may adopt
rules or regulations to restrict, or specify the conditions for, the use of
bicycles, motorized bicycles, electric bicycles, skateboards, and roller skates
on public property under the jurisdiction of that agency.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(h) “Housing authority,” for the purposes of this section,
means a housing authority located within a county with a population of over
6,000,000 people, and any other housing authority that complies with the
requirements of this section.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(i) “Public transportation agency,” for purposes of this
section, means a public agency that provides public transportation as defined
in paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 1 of Article XIX A of the
California Constitution.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">SEC. 4.5. Section 21113 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read: <br /></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">21113. (a) A person shall not drive a vehicle or animal, or
stop, park, or leave standing a vehicle or animal, whether attended or
unattended, upon the driveways, paths, parking facilities, or the grounds of
any public school, state university, state college, unit of the state park
system, county park, municipal airport, rapid transit district, transit
development board, transit district, public transportation agency, county
transportation commission created pursuant to Section 130050 of the Public
Utilities Code, joint powers agency operating or managing a commuter rail
system, or any property under the direct control of the legislative body of a municipality,
or a state, county, or hospital district institution or building, or an
educational institution exempted, in whole or in part, from taxation, or any
harbor improvement district or harbor district formed pursuant to Part 2
(commencing with Section 5800) or Part 3 (commencing with Section 6000) of
Division 8 of the Harbors and Navigation Code, a district organized pursuant to
Part 3 (commencing with Section 27000) of Division 16 of the Streets and
Highways Code, or state grounds served by the Department of the California
Highway Patrol, or any property under the possession or control of a housing
authority formed pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 34240) of
Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code, except with the
permission of, and upon and subject to any condition or regulation that may be
imposed by, the legislative body of the municipality, or the governing board or
officer of the public school, state university, state college, county park,
municipal airport, rapid transit district, transit development board, transit
district, public transportation agency, county transportation commission, joint
powers agency operating or managing a commuter rail system, or state, county,
or hospital district institution or building, or educational institution, or
harbor district, or a district organized pursuant to Part 3 (commencing with
Section 27000) of Division 16 of the Streets and Highways Code, or housing
authority, or the Director of Parks and Recreation regarding units of the state
park system or the state agency with jurisdiction over the grounds served by
the Department of the California Highway Patrol.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(b) A governing board, legislative body, or officer shall
erect or place appropriate signs giving notice of any special conditions or
regulations that are imposed under this section and the governing board,
legislative body, or officer shall also prepare and keep available at the
principal administrative office of the governing board, legislative body, or
officer, for examination by all interested persons, a written statement of all
those special conditions and regulations adopted pursuant to this section. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(c) When a governing board, legislative body, or officer
permits public traffic upon the driveways, paths, parking facilities, or
grounds under their control then, except for those conditions imposed or
regulations enacted by the governing board, legislative body, or officer
applicable to the traffic, all the provisions of this code relating to traffic
upon the highways shall be applicable to the traffic upon the driveways, paths,
parking facilities, or grounds.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(d) A public transportation agency that imposes any
condition or regulation upon a person who parks or leaves standing a vehicle,
pursuant to subdivision (a), is authorized to do either of the following:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(1) Enforce that condition or regulation in the manner
provided in Article 3 (commencing with Section 40200) of Chapter 1 of Division
17 of this code. The public transportation agency shall be considered the issuing
agency for that purpose.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(2) Designate regularly employed and salaried employees, who
are engaged in directing traffic or enforcing parking laws and regulations, for
the purpose of removing any vehicle in the same manner as a city, county, or
jurisdiction of a state agency pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section
22650) of Division 11 of this code.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(e) With respect to the permitted use of vehicles or animals
on property under the direct control of the legislative body of a municipality,
no change in the use of vehicles or animals on the property, that had been
permitted on January 1, 1976, shall be effective unless and until the
legislative body, at a meeting open to the general public, determines that the
use of vehicles or animals on the property should be prohibited or regulated.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(f) A transit development board may adopt ordinances, rules,
or regulations to restrict, or specify the conditions for, the use of bicycles,
motorized bicycles, electric bicycles, skateboards, electrically motorized boards,
and roller skates on property under the control of, or any portion of property
used by, the board.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(g) A public agency, including, but not limited to, the
Regents of the University of California and the Trustees of the California State
University, may adopt
rules or regulations to restrict, or specify the conditions for, the use of
bicycles, motorized bicycles, electric bicycles, skateboards, electrically
motorized boards, and roller skates on public property under the jurisdiction
of that agency.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(h) “Housing authority,” for the purposes of this section,
means a housing authority located within a county with a population of over
6,000,000 people, and any other housing authority that complies with the
requirements of this section.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(i) “Public transportation agency,” for purposes of this
section, means a public agency that provides public transportation as defined
in paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 1 of Article XIX A of the
California Constitution.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">SEC. 5. Section 21207.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">21207.5. (a) Notwithstanding Sections 21207 and 23127 of
this code, or any other law, a motorized bicycle or class 3 electric bicycle
shall not be operated on a bicycle path or trail, bikeway, bicycle lane
established pursuant to Section 21207, equestrian trail, or hiking or
recreational trail, unless it is within or adjacent to a roadway or unless the
local authority or the governing body of a public agency having jurisdiction
over the path or trail permits, by ordinance, that operation.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(b) The local authority or governing body of a public agency
having jurisdiction over a bicycle path or trail, equestrian trail, or hiking
or recreational trail, may prohibit, by ordinance, the operation of a class 1
or class 2 electric bicycle on that path or trail.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">SEC. 6. Section 21213 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">21213. (a) A person under 16 years of age shall not operate
a class 3 electric bicycle.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(b) A person shall not operate a class 3 electric bicycle,
or ride upon a class 3 electric bicycle as a passenger, upon a street, bikeway,
as defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any other
public bicycle path or trail, unless that person is wearing a properly fitted
and fastened bicycle helmet that meets the standards of either the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or the United States Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CPSC), or standards subsequently established by those
entities. This helmet requirement also applies to a person who rides upon a
class 3 electric bicycle while in a restraining seat that is attached to the
bicycle or in a trailer towed by the bicycle.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">SEC. 7. Section 24016 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">24016. (a) An electric bicycle described in subdivision (a)
of Section 312.5 shall meet the following criteria:</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(1) Comply with the equipment and manufacturing requirements
for bicycles adopted by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission
(16 C.F.R. 1512.1, et seq.).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(2) Operate in a manner so that the electric motor is
disengaged or ceases to function when the brakes are applied, or operate in a
manner such that the motor is engaged through a switch or mechanism that, when
released or activated, will cause the electric motor to disengage or cease to
function.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(b) A person operating an electric bicycle is not subject to
the provisions of this code relating to financial responsibility, driver’s
licenses, registration, and license plate requirements, and an electric bicycle
is not a motor vehicle.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(c) Every manufacturer of an electric bicycle shall certify
that it complies with the equipment and manufacturing requirements for bicycles
adopted by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission (16 C.F.R.
1512.1, et seq.).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">(d) A person shall not tamper with or modify an electric
bicycle described in subdivision (a) of Section 312.5 so as to change the speed
capability of the bicycle, unless he or she appropriately replaces the label
indicating the classification required in subdivision (c) of Section 312.5.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">SEC. 8. Section 4.5 of this bill incorporates amendments to
Section 21113 of the Vehicle Code proposed by both this bill and Assembly Bill
604. It shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become
effective on or before January 1, 2016, (2) each bill amends Section 21113 of
the Vehicle Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after Assembly Bill 604, in
which case Section 4 of this bill shall not become operative.</p>
<p>SEC. 9. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only
costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be
incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime
or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the
meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a
crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.
<br />
</p><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2020 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-4574456490662161892021-09-18T16:05:00.001-07:002021-09-18T16:06:37.716-07:00Amazon's new 'guarantee' policy seeks to mollify consumers, streamline claims process<div class="block block-delta-blocks block-page-title block-delta-blocks-page-title" id="block-delta-blocks-page-title">
<div class="block-inner clearfix">
<div class="content clearfix">
<h1 class="title" id="page-title"></h1> </div>
</div>
</div><div class="block block-views block-news-block-8 block-views-news-block-8" id="block-views-news-block-8">
<div class="block-inner clearfix">
<div class="content clearfix">
<div class="view view-news view-id-news view-display-id-block_8 view-dom-id-3480a2132df1c97a37a17ba2710b8151">
<div class="view-content">
<div class="views-row views-row-1 views-row-odd views-row-first views-row-last clearfix">
<div class="views-field views-field-created"> <span class="views-label views-label-created">Originally Published </span> <span class="field-content">in <a href="https://www.bicycleretailer.com/opinion-analysis/2021/08/16/amazons-new-guarantee-policy-seeks-mollify-consumers-streamline-claims" target="_blank">Bicycle Retailer and Industry News</a> </span></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content">Reprinted with permission </span></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><a href="https://www.bicycleretailer.com/search/node/swhlaw" target="_blank"><span class="field-content">Our prior columns in BRAIN</span></a></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content"><br /></span></div><div class="views-field views-field-created"><span class="field-content">August 17, 2021</span> </div> </div>
</div>
</div> </div>
</div>
</div><div class="block block-views block-author-block block-views-author-block" id="block-views-author-block">
<div class="block-inner clearfix">
<div class="content clearfix">
<div class="view view-author view-id-author view-display-id-block view-dom-id-0ea82d759033590bbae9e93adcdd9e4c">
<div class="view-content">
<div class="views-row views-row-1 views-row-odd views-row-first views-row-last">
by <a href="https://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/profile-of-steven-w-hansen.html" target="_blank">Steven W. Hansen</a><span class="field-content authname"></span> </div>
</div>
</div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p>Amazon
just announced a new type of "guarantee" or "support" that it is
calling the A-to-Z Guarantee (AZG). Actually, this is not new; it was
introduced more than 20 years ago, but is now "improved." In Amazon's
own words, from its <a href="https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/how-amazon-works/new-a-to-z-guarantee-better-protects-amazon-customers-and-sellers" target="_blank">full official press release</a>:</p>
<p>"Now, in the unlikely event a defective product sold through
Amazon.com causes property damage or personal injury, Amazon will
directly pay customers for claims under $1,000 — which account for more
than 80% of cases — at no cost to sellers, and may step in to pay claims
for higher amounts if the seller is unresponsive or rejects a claim we
believe to be valid."</p>
<p>Interestingly, in the fine print (<a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=GTUXEP9L4KCBFSLU" target="_blank">A-to-z Claims Process Terms and Conditions</a>),
Amazon also states, "The Process is not insurance or a warranty, and it
does not replace any applicable insurance or warranty that may be
available to you."</p>
<p>As you can see there are a lot of loaded words in this AZG press
release, what my contracts professor liked to call "weasel words." It's
hard to imagine any personal injury or property damage claims being
"resolved" for under $1,000. The other issue that is left somewhat in
the dark is what would be in the release that Amazon surely would
require a consumer to sign. I suspect it would be a global release
barring any suit against anyone or any company from future claims. And
of course, the issue of what to do with minors under 18 is not
addressed. Those settlements require court approval. Further reading of
the details notes that you would also have to assign all your claims
rights to Amazon ... "so that we can pursue recovery from other sources
in our discretion."</p>
<p>What is more interesting is how Amazon will fund this. One has to
assume the money is not coming out of Jeff Bezos' yacht fund, given how
many claims this would likely encompass. On the one hand, this is AZG is
only for products sold through Amazon.com (presumably Fulfillment by
Amazon) and apparently does not cover those items sold through any
"third-party sites" (Fulfillment by Merchant). This will add confusion
to the process, especially with consumers as most do not know if they
are getting an FBA product or FBM product. Some aspects of the AZG cover
FBM, but the new part regarding injury claims apparently does not. One
has to assume this funding is being arranged through Amazon's insurance
coverage, the suppliers' coverage (naming Amazon as "additional
insured"), or perhaps through Amazon withholding payment to sellers for
claims that it has deemed "bonafide" (or a combination of all three
sources). Amazon insists this payment is at "no cost to sellers."
However, upon further reading, Amazon only commits to "Pay valid claims
less than $1,000 and not seek reimbursement from sellers who have valid
insurance." We assume "valid" insurance would mean insurance that
actually pays Amazon for the claim; if it does not pay the claim, then
Amazon could go after the seller directly.</p>
<p>After further reading the Terms And Conditions, it states "Any offers
of compensation made through the A-to-z Claims Process will be limited
to (a) the purchase price of the product; and (b) compensation of up to
$1 million for medical expenses, lost wages, and property damage
approximately caused by a defective product. Amazon will not offer to
compensate you for non-economic damages, business losses, consequential
and incidental damages, attorney fees, punitive damages, or other
losses." So it seems the payment limit is much higher than the $1,000
limit. But Amazon will only step in above that limit if the seller's
insurance kicks in. It also appears that no "pain and suffering" amounts
will be paid, which makes up the vast majority of most settlements and
verdicts, and so the reality is for any sizable personal injury claims
this process is not realistically going to resolve anything.</p>
<p>As a further restriction, you only have 90 days to make an AZG claim,
whereas under most state laws, you would have 2-5 years to bring suit
and typically for minors until they are 18. Also, all other terms and
conditions apply to the AZG Claims process, including but not limited to
choice of law and dispute resolution provisions. One would have to
assume that it would be a binding arbitration proceeding and that the
company providing the arbitrators would find itself out of business
quickly if it were deciding against Amazon too often.</p>
<p>Again the more interesting part of this deal is the funding,
administration and the entire claims process, which brings us to part
two of the equation: liability insurance. Amazon partnered with Marsh
McLennan, the largest insurance broker in the world, and a number of
U.S. insurers to offer insurance to its sellers. <a href="https://sellercentral.amazon.com/gp/help/external/help.html?itemID=GTY6NYZDFD5CENYH" target="_blank">Per the Amazon seller central site</a>:
"Effective September 1, 2021, once you reach $10,000 in gross proceeds
in any month, you are required under your selling agreement with Amazon
to carry commercial liability insurance with limits of at least $1
million in the aggregate and name Amazon as an additional insured" and
of course the "stick" part: "If you do not obtain the required
insurance, we will seek reimbursement for costs we incur in resolving
claims, regardless of sales thresholds, unless we agree to waive our
right to reimbursement. We may also restrict you from selling in a
particular category or even suspend your account until you provide proof
of insurance." Of course, Amazon sellers remain free to use their own
insurance brokers and insurer to obtain the required insurance, and it
remains to be seen if the Amazon consortium of brokers and insurers ends
up being cheaper.</p>
<p>In addition to leaving out the FBM side of Amazon, the insurance
program appears to be open only to U.S.-based sellers. This of course is
a huge loophole in the entire process as most of what Amazon sells is
from sellers outside the U.S. That of course is a much thornier problem
that Amazon's AZG process does not seem to deal with at all. It's not
clear what percentage of non-U.S. manufactured goods are actually sold
to Amazon by third-party sellers within the U.S. on the FBA side.</p>
<p>Surely, the state court's assault — or rather plaintiff attorneys'
assault on Amazon — in the last two years (with most of the anti-Amazon
appellate rulings coming out in the last 12 months) has had some role in
this new process being rolled out. <a href="https://www.swhlaw.com/2020/08/california-court-rules-that-amazon-does.html" target="_blank">As I and the courts predicted after the Bolger v Amazon case</a>
this would accelerate Amazon's process of passing the "product
liability" cost along to its sellers and forcing them to get coverage.
This is exactly what the courts in their rulings have stated; that a
large player in the consumer products marketplace, like Amazon, has the
financial clout and bargaining strength to require its millions of
sellers to get the required insurance. The courts were right. Amazon is
doing just what they predicted. Holding Amazon liable as a seller has
forced it to push that liability back upstream.</p>
<p>Finally, there is Amazon's <a href="https://www.swhlaw.com/2021/07/us-consumer-product-safety-commission.html" target="_blank">fight with the CPSC</a>,
which may also be somewhat related to this. Amazon may be using this
new AZG accelerated claims process to burnish its image with the CPSC,
portraying itself as a responsible company that cares about consumers
and their safety. But again the recall responsibility is separate from
the product liability responsibility (although the two are linked) and
it remains to be seen who will win in the CPSC fight.</p>
<p>There are many unanswered questions on this process, and surely
changes will be implemented as Amazon goes along or it might totally
change the program. We also do not know to what extent the plaintiff's
bar will create ancillary litigation just out of this process alone. I
am sure that Walmart.com and other large platforms trying to compete
with Amazon are watching closely. Infusing this much insurance coverage
and related administration costs into the consumer goods market that was
previously uninsured is not only going to cause consumer goods price
inflation, as if we don't have enough already, but there will be a huge
shift of money into insurance coffers. With increased prices we know who
benefits. Amazon. We also do not know what percentage of FBA (or FBM)
sellers are uninsured currently.</p>
<p>Another thing we know about Amazon is that it likes to take over many
aspects related to consumer product sales (after watching third parties
work in a market segment for years like FedEx). Look at Amazon Web
Services and <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/04/how-amazon-is-shipping-for-third-parties-to-compete-with-fedex-and-ups.html" target="_blank">Amazon shipping</a> for example. So the next question is when
will Amazon get into the lucrative insurance brokerage market or claims
administration business? Amazon has certainly upped its game in the
consumer goods business. It will be very interesting to watch this play
out over the next two years.</p>
<p><i><a href="https://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/profile-of-steven-w-hansen.html" target="_blank">Steven W. Hansen</a>
is an attorney who represents product manufacturers, distributors and
retailers in product liability and other lawsuits and provides
consultation on all matters related to the manufacture and distribution
of e-bikes and other consumer products. For further questions visit <a href="https://www.swhlaw.com">www.swhlaw.com</a> or email <a href="mailto:legal.inquiry@swhlaw.com">legal.inquiry@swhlaw.com</a></i></p>
<p><i>The information in this column is subject to change and may not
be applicable in your state or country. It is intended as a
thought-provoking discussion of general legal principles and does not
constitute legal advice. Any opinions expressed herein are solely those
of the author.</i></p>
</div></div></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2020 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-44567752182877289962021-07-16T13:20:00.001-07:002021-07-16T13:20:36.791-07:00U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) filed an administrative complaint against Amazon.com, on July 14 2021 to force it to recall certain consumer products<p>The CPSC does not actually have the ability to "force" a US company to undertake a "voluntary recall". The vast majority of CPSC recalls are basically undertaken voluntarily. The degree of how voluntary or involuntary they are often depends on the nature of the safety problem, how widespread it is and also on the size of the company. Again in the vast majority of cases, such as <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/06/24/peloton-treadmill-backlash/" target="_blank">recently with Peloton</a>, the company relents and agrees to conduct a "voluntary" recall under the control of CPSC. In some cases however the CPSC either has to back down and accept what remediation and notification that has been done, or like in <a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2021/CPSC-Sues-Amazon-to-Force-Recall-of-Hazardous-Products-Sold-on-Amazon-com" target="_blank">this case with Amazon</a>, it literally has to sue Amazon to "force" it to recall the products under CPSC guidelines with the CPSC calling the shots (as usual) on the specifics of how the notifications will be sent out, what they say, the remedies etc. The <a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdfs/recall/lawsuits/abc/001-In-re-Amazon-com-Inc__.pdf?TvLLxHy1UMfiz3BpfXaKjQy1ibQbYAiU" target="_blank">suit itself is quite a good read</a> (and educational) and details the position the CPSC is asserting on Amazon's role in the sales and returns process and why it should be forced to undertake the recall (not the overseas manufacturers which the CPSC has no control over). Its quite an eyeopener. This is nothing short of extraordinary for the CPSC to do and again it only does so in egregious situations where it is quite certain a judge will agree with its findings. </p><p>Obviously we would never counsel any of our clients to take such a step unless there were good reasons not to conduct a recall, but of course if that was the case the CPSC would not likely be suing the company. We always recommend cooperating with the CPSC (but only through counsel) if you plan on conducting a recall for a host of related legal reasons. It will be interesting to watch this suit play out. No doubt the CPSC felt emboldened by a number of recent court decisions <a href="https://www.swhlaw.com/2020/08/california-court-rules-that-amazon-does.html" target="_blank">like this one </a>in California holding Amazon legally responsible for the distribution of allegedly defective products.<br />
<br />
</p><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2020 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-74010881556630254072020-08-23T18:42:00.003-07:002020-11-19T13:16:36.655-08:00California Court rules that Amazon does have liability for a defective product (Bolger v Amazon.com LLC)<p>This article was reprinted with permission from <a href="https://www.bicycleretailer.com/opinion-analysis/2020/08/16/california-court-rules-amazon-does-have-liability-defective-product" target="_blank">Bicycle Retailer and Industry News<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:RelyOnVML/>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object
classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--></a> <span> </span></p><p><span>By Steven W. Hansen, Esq. </span></p><p><i><span>Update 11/19/20: </span><span>The California Supreme Court on 11/18/20 denied Amazon.com LLC’s
bid for judicial review of this case decided earlier this fall. So that mean this case is now a legally cite-able precedent and is "the law" in Calif.</span></i></p><p><span>An appeals court in California ruled Thursday that Amazon is
not shielded from liability for defective products sold by third-party
sellers through its online marketplace.</span></p>
<p>Nationally this <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vgk8R9jeZhUNn9C_O-hTE0N5PnmJQTxH/view" target="_blank">California Appellate case</a> is one of the first decided
against Amazon holding them directly liable for a defective product
sold on its marketplace. It remains to be seen what happens on somewhat
similar cases pending in state and federal courts throughout the
country. On a related issue, the California Legislature is considering a
bill <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mDYfSR77USpy8wG-JqHbMYy8gResNvXi/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">(AB-3262 Product liability: electronic retail marketplaces)</a> that
would treat “electronic retail marketplaces” like retailers for purposes
of California strict liability law. The future of this bill is
uncertain and most if not all of California law regarding product
liability is case law not statutory law.</p>
<p>The plaintiff in the California case, Angela Bolger, bought a replacement laptop computer battery on Amazon.com in 2016.</p>
<p>The listing for the battery on Amazon identified the “seller” (“sold
by”) as “E-Life,” a fictitious name used on Amazon by Lenoge Technology
(HK) Ltd. (Lenoge). Amazon charged Bolger for the purchase, retrieved
the laptop battery from its location in an Amazon warehouse, (as this
was an “FBA” sale or “fulfillment by Amazon”) prepared the battery for
shipment in Amazon-branded packaging, and sent it to Bolger. Bolger
alleged the battery exploded several months later, and she suffered
severe burns as a result.</p>
<p>Interestingly a month after the purchase Amazon suspended Lenoge’s
selling privileges because it became aware of a “grouping” of safety
reports on Lenoge’s laptop batteries and Lenoge did not respond to
Amazon’s requests for documentation. Three weeks later, Amazon
permanently blocked Lenoge’s account. Bolger sued Amazon in January
2017 and several other defendants, including Lenoge, alleging causes of
action for strict products liability, negligent products liability,
breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and
“negligence/negligent undertaking.” Lenoge was served but did not
appear, so the trial court entered its default. Other entities were sued
as well but foreign service of process was going to take 2-3 years.
Three months after suit was filed, Amazon sent Bolger an email warning
her that Amazon had learned that the Lenoge replacement battery “may
present a fire hazard or not perform as expected…If you still have this
product, we strongly recommend that you stop using the item
immediately.”</p>
<p>What is most interesting to us is that there is no record of any CPSC
recall regarding this battery or related companies which would be
required before any notification were sent to a consumer regarding a
safety issue; unless of course Amazon did not consider itself a seller
or in the retail chain. Ironically there is still an Amazon seller named
“Lenoge” selling laptop batteries on the site as of this writing.</p>
<p>After almost two years of litigation, Amazon moved for summary
judgment, arguing primarily that the doctrine of strict products
liability, as well as any similar tort theory, did not apply to it
because Amazon did not design or manufacture the product, sell or
distribute the battery, set the price, provide a warranty, or control
the terms of the product offer. Similarly, Amazon argued it was not
involved in sourcing the subject battery from the manufacturer or
upstream distributor.” Amazon also submitted a declaration from an
Amazon senior manager responsible for product safety, investigations,
and recalls who asserted that “E-life retained title to the battery at
all times,” and “E-life was also responsible for ensuring the battery
that it sold to [Bolger] was properly packaged and complied with all
applicable laws.” The Amazon manager acknowledged Amazon’s A-to-z
Guarantee, but she denied it was a warranty. She stated, “The only
warranty provided for a product comes from the third-party seller.”</p>
<p>The trial court judge agreed with all of Amazon’s factual and legal
arguments (even though there were likely disputed facts that could have
prevented the motion from being granted), and granted Amazon’s motion,
and entered judgment accordingly. </p>
<p>The three-judge panel at the Court of Appeal, strongly disagreed in a very well reasoned decision. <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vgk8R9jeZhUNn9C_O-hTE0N5PnmJQTxH/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">We strongly urge readers to take a look at the opinion</a> starting
at page 18 as it pretty much lays out the entire basis of product
liability in California and how Amazon’s attempt to shield itself from
liability was really a smokescreen for its true role in the chain of
distribution.</p>
<p>Initially the court pointed out that “Essentially the paramount
policy to be promoted by the [product liability doctrine] is the
protection of otherwise defenseless victims of manufacturing defects and
the spreading throughout society of the cost of compensating them.” But
“the facts must establish a sufficient causative relationship or
connection between the defendant and the product so as to satisfy the
policies underlying the strict liability doctrine.” The court looked at
older decisions where product “facilitators” had benefited from service
charges in providing the product and finding liability as the “overall
producing and marketing enterprise is in a better position to insure
against the liability and to distribute it to the public by adding the
cost thereof to the price of the product.” </p>
<p>One of the key factors (although perhaps not the deciding factor) in
this case was that the Lenoge supplier was participating in the FBA
program with Amazon. The court painstakingly went thru the process of
how the battery got from Lenoge to Amazon and from Amazon to the
consumer and that Amazon was an “integral part of the overall producing
and marketing enterprise that should bear the cost of injuries resulting
from defective products.”. The court painstakingly went thru all of the
policies underlying the doctrine of strict products liability to
confirm that the doctrine should apply.</p>
<p>First, Amazon, like conventional retailers, may be the only member of
the distribution chain reasonably available to an injured plaintiff who
purchases a product on its website. </p>
<p>Second, Amazon, again like conventional retailers, “may play a
substantial part in insuring that the product is safe or may be in a
position to exert pressure on the manufacturer to that end; the
retailer’s strict liability thus serves as an added incentive to
safety.”</p>
<p>Third, Amazon, like conventional retailers, has the capacity to
adjust the cost of compensating injured plaintiffs between itself and
the third-party sellers in the course of their ongoing relationship.</p>
<p>Amazon focused on dictionary definitions of “seller” and
“distributor” and claimed it could not be held strictly liable because
those definitions do not apply to it. It characterized its business as a
service, i.e., a forum for others to sell their products, and therefore
outside the rule of strict liability. The court felt Amazon’s arguments
were unpersuasive.</p>
<p>First, regardless of whether Amazon selected this particular battery
for sale, it chose to host Lenoge’s product listing, accept Lenoge into
the FBA program, take possession of the battery, accept Bolger’s order,
take her payment, and ship the battery to her. Amazon was therefore part
of the chain of distribution even if it did not consciously select the
Lenoge replacement battery for sale. Second, and more fundamentally,
Amazon <i>did </i>choose to offer the Lenoge replacement battery for
sale. Amazon was no mere bystander to the vast digital and physical
apparatus it designed and controlled. The court reasoned Amazon made
these choices for its own commercial purposes and so it should share in
the consequences.</p>
<p>Many of the arguments Amazon asserted were contradictory. For
example, Amazon argued that it did not set the price for third-party
products and therefore cannot “spread the cost of defects across units
sold.” But as Amazon noted, it does control its fees. If it desires, it
can increase fees on high-risk products, or all products, and thereby
spread the cost of compensating consumers injured by such products. Of
course, this is the problem in general with low-cost products. Costs
must be cut somewhere and one of the ways to do that is by avoiding
product liability and insurance costs. This is typically the case with
overseas companies beyond the reach of US courts. But of course, the
argument here is that Amazon does in fact have control over these
overseas companies and can force them to insure Amazon.</p>
<p>Amazon also contended (as all internet companies do) that, regardless
of its liability under California law, it is shielded by the federal
Communications Decency Act (1996). The court ruled against Amazon on
this issue as well as under existing case law, “while the [CDA] protects
interactive computer service providers from liability <i>as a publisher of speech</i>,
it does not protect them from liability as the seller of a defective
product.” Here the liability was based on Amazon’s own conduct, as
described above, not the content of Lenoge’s product listing. The court
also distinguished eBay cases where eBay was not found responsible for
users' false product listings.</p>
<p>It is important to point out that this appellate decision will almost
surely be appealed by Amazon to the California Supreme court and that
it could take well over a year for a final decision from that court.
Once that decision comes down from the CA Supreme court (Its unclear if
the US Supreme court would agree to hear this case) the case may still
be sent back to the trial court for trial and appealed again from a
verdict. Or the case may settle and this opinion and/or any Supreme
Court opinion would stand as the law. Amazon may seek to “de-publish”
the opinion so it could not be relied on as precedent. That outcome is
unlikely in this case. </p>
<p>The issue of Amazon’s strict liability for third-party sales has
been, and continues to be, litigated in state and federal courts across
the country. Some hold Amazon strictly liable while others do not. Many
of the other cases are factually distinguishable, including because the
product at issue was NOT sold through Amazon’s FBA program (as in the
Bolger case). Also other state statutes or case law have limited strict
liability in a manner inconsistent with California law. </p>
<p>So now what are the implications of the Bolger case? Well knowing
Amazon and how it likes to assert its leverage over sellers, it will
likely immediately start requiring very large insurance policies naming
it as additional insured for all third party sellers (but especially
those who use FBA) As California is such a huge market for Amazon and
Amazon cannot be sure where a third party seller product may be shipped,
any decision in any state holding Amazon responsible will make it such
that Amazon will have to enforce the insurance requirements system-wide.
Also as most plaintiffs do not pursue entities in other countries that
require complex foreign service and jurisdictional issues to be
overcome, it will be interesting to see how this decision forces Amazon
to force the small sellers to pony up when it comes to the defense and
indemnification of Amazon. The overall effect will likely be increased
prices on the Amazon third party platform (even more so that
post-COVIID-19) which may hurt it in its fight with Walmart.</p>
<p>This decision was a long time in coming but I had to say the writing
was on the wall. The decision is a great read for those that want to
learn about how Amazon deals with sellers. Amazon wants a big piece of
the sales pie. It wanted to have total control over sellers and buyers
while keeping the two isolated from each other. But when it came to
liability its position was “oh we don’t sell anything and have nothing
to do with the marketing of the product”. Well that facade has now been
severely eroded. The emperor's lack of clothes has now been pointed out
in a court decision that will be heard around the world. <br />
<br />
</p><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2020 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-64499762762776369092020-08-12T14:08:00.007-07:002022-06-21T13:48:11.382-07:00California Bill alert; AB-1286 Shared mobility devices: agreements (2019-2020) (AB 371 2022)<p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">UPDATE 6/21/22. This bill was renumbered to AB 371 and CAL Bike does not like the insurance requirements. Quite a few provisions have been added since 2020 version below. Here is the <a href="https://www.calbike.org/take_action/save-bike-share/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=32e4dbb2-0da1-44f2-b124-141098fb58d4&sl_tc=Email" target="_blank">calbike campaign</a> and the link to the <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB371&showamends=false" target="_blank">current version</a> of the bill. Act now in contacting your CA legislator as votes can happen very quickly without warning. <br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">UPDATE 9/2/20. So the legislative year is over in CA as of 8/31/20...whew...The final bill language is set forth below as of 9/2/20. They still did not clean up the issue below in my 8/27/20 update. If the bill is signed by Gov. Newsom it looks like it would take effect </span><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">January 1, 2021.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">UPDATE 8/27/20:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">It appears that the mobility industry and or others in the industry were able to remove all the provisions in the bill relating to releases. However in my opinion the definition of a </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span>“Shared mobility device” and a </span><span><span> “Shared mobility device provider” is still too vague which then leads to a problem with this remaining provision <i>"</i></span></span></span><span><span><span style="font-size: medium;"><i><span>(b) Before <b>distribution</b> of a shared mobility device, a shared
mobility service provider shall enter into an agreement with, or obtain a
permit from, the city or county with jurisdiction <b>over the area of use.</b></span>" </i> "Distribution" is way too vague and again this could apply to very small rental operations that cannot afford such high insurance limits.</span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span><span><span style="font-size: medium;">ORIGINAL 8/12/20 POST:</span></span></span> <br /></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">Once again someone in the California legislature got whiff of a bad idea and decided to run with it. Just like the <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5" target="_blank">AB 5 bill last year </a>regarding independent contractors and the resulting <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2020/08/12/uber-could-shut-down-in-california-for-months-ceo-says/#3341735922d8" target="_blank">unwinding of Uber in CA.</a>, now we have a "shared mobility bill" that attempts to "fix" a few issues in that sector but does it in a very heavy handed way. </span></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">The first problem is the definition of a "shared mobility device". (ellipses eliminates unneeded verbiage) "Shared mobility device” means an electrically motorized board.... motorized scooter ... electric bicycle... [human powered] bicycle..., or <b>other similar personal
transportation device</b>, .... that is made available to the public..". It gets worse.<br /></span>
<span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;"><br />“Shared mobility service provider”... means a <b>person or
entity</b> that offers, makes available, or provides a shared mobility
device in exchange for financial compensation..."</span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">So if one person wanted to rent a bike to someone, this law applies to that person renting a bike. Rather overbroad and too all inclusive. Poorly drafted in my opinion. There should be some revenue size threshold added to this definition.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">Now for the good part, if you rent one of these devices (regardless of the size of your business or the amount of revenue to you earn) you have to purchase a policy from a California admitted insurer (might be tough from what I know of this insurance market) and the limits have to be 1 million per claim and 5 million dollars in the aggregate. In some respects that is more than Walmart suppliers have to procure to sell to Walmart.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">But there is more. The "</span><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">agreement between the provider and a user shall not contain a provision
by which the user waives, releases, or in any way limits their legal
rights or remedies under the agreement.". So even though California statutory law and case law allows for such waivers and releases in the recreational sports context, this legislator knows better and is going to go against established law. Such releases are not allowed in a product liability case to begin with. All this does is expose the companies renting (not product manufacturers or distributors) to MORE liability and make it harder for them to extricate themselves from litigation. Also the insurance market has "priced in" those waivers and without them insurance costs will likely rise in this sector. Legislators should think very long and hard before tinkering with existing liability laws and precedent. The law of unintended consequences makes things hard to fix once a new law is unleashed.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">It goes on to provide that "</span><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">A city or county that <b>authorized</b> a provider to operate within its
jurisdiction before January 1, 2020, and continues to provide that
authorization shall adopt<span class="blue_text" style="color: blue;"><i>
rules for the</i></span> operation, parking,<span style="color: red;"><strike> maintenance, and safety rules regarding the use</strike></span><span class="blue_text" style="color: blue;"><i> and maintenance</i></span> of shared mobility devices..."<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">Quite frankly I trust the mobility companies to come up with better rules for operation than any government entity. Trust me I have seen this play out before. Government entities are not very adept at this especially considering the hundreds of different devices out there.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">It is <span>worth noting that </span></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span><span style="left: 120.167px; top: 669.468px; transform: scaleX(0.904411);">this bill is co</span><span style="left: 250.3px; top: 669.468px;">-</span><span style="left: 257.833px; top: 669.468px; transform: scaleX(0.873986);">sponsored by the Consumer Attorne</span><span style="left: 591.967px; top: 669.468px; transform: scaleX(0.900625);">ys of California (CAOC) (which is a large association of attorneys that represents plaintiff's) and the </span><span style="left: 120.167px; top: 695.718px; transform: scaleX(0.878496);">League of California Cities (which is a group that generally advocates for cities) It is supported by the Environmental Defense Fund </span><span style="left: 120.167px; top: 723.252px; transform: scaleX(0.880544);">and a number of consumer protection groups. It is opposed by a number of shared </span><span style="left: 120.167px; top: 749.502px; transform: scaleX(0.889447);">mobility service providers, TechNet, and the Civil Justice Ass</span><span style="left: 702.133px; top: 749.502px; transform: scaleX(0.941751);">oc</span><span style="left: 725.867px; top: 749.502px; transform: scaleX(0.912616);">iation of </span><span style="left: 120.167px; top: 777.052px; transform: scaleX(0.90062);">California</span><span style="left: 210.25px; top: 777.052px; transform: scaleX(0.944521);">.</span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span><span style="left: 210.25px; top: 777.052px; transform: scaleX(0.944521);">The senate Judiciary Committee Analysis is as follows (in part) <br /></span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span><span style="left: 210.25px; top: 777.052px; transform: scaleX(0.944521);"></span></span><span style="left: 180.2px; top: 903.65px; transform: scaleX(0.7944);"></span><span style="left: 210.25px; top: 903.65px; transform: scaleX(0.913858);">Required prohibition on waiver of rights and re</span><span style="left: 589.45px; top: 903.65px; transform: scaleX(0.818718);">medies</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="left: 120.167px; top: 952.45px; transform: scaleX(1.01292);">Pursuant to the bill, the agreement and permit must also prohibit provisions in shared </span><span style="left: 120.167px; top: 977.45px; transform: scaleX(1.01001);">mobility provider agreements between providers and users by which the user waives, </span><span style="left: 120.167px; top: 1002.5px; transform: scaleX(1.00192);">releases, or in any way limits their legal rights or remedies under the agreem</span><span style="left: 799.717px; top: 1002.5px; transform: scaleX(0.955589);">ent. </span><span style="left: 120.167px; top: 1052.53px; transform: scaleX(1.0355);">Writing in opposition, were a coalition of groups</span><span style="left: 504.383px; top: 1052.53px;">,</span><span style="left: 513.133px; top: 1052.53px; transform: scaleX(1.03733);"> including a number of providers</span><span style="left: 807.25px; top: 1052.53px; transform: scaleX(0.939154);"> such as </span><span style="left: 120.167px; top: 1077.57px; transform: scaleX(1.03648);">Bird and Lime.</span><span style="left: 257.833px; top: 1077.57px; transform: scaleX(0.933371);"></span><span style="left: 180.2px; top: 1126.37px; transform: scaleX(1.02443);"></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="left: 180.2px; top: 1126.37px; transform: scaleX(1.02443);"></span><span style="left: 556.917px; top: 1201.45px; transform: scaleX(1.03111);">What is interesting is that the committee responded to their opposition with:</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="left: 120.167px; top: 258.033px; transform: scaleX(1.01272);">"It is true that such waivers are generally permitted</span><span style="left: 573.217px; top: 258.033px; transform: scaleX(1.03443);"> and widely used</span><span style="left: 722.117px; top: 258.033px; transform: scaleX(0.900901);">, </span><span style="left: 730.867px; top: 258.033px; transform: scaleX(0.98285);">but are subject to</span><span style="left: 120.167px; top: 281.817px; transform: scaleX(1.03753);"> certain limitations </span><span style="left: 285.333px; top: 281.817px; transform: scaleX(1.0288);">and requirements laid out in</span><span style="left: 544.417px; top: 281.817px; transform: scaleX(0.974649);"> statute and case law. </span><span style="left: 732.133px; top: 281.817px; transform: scaleX(1.0127);">Ci</span><span style="left: 752.167px; top: 281.817px; transform: scaleX(0.989913);">vil Code Section </span><span style="left: 120.167px; top: 306.817px; transform: scaleX(0.990316);">1668 provides:</span><span style="left: 254.05px; top: 306.817px;">“</span><span style="left: 264.083px; top: 306.817px; transform: scaleX(1.02835);">All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to </span><span style="left: 120.167px; top: 331.867px; transform: scaleX(1.02323);">exempt anyone from responsibility for his ow</span><span style="left: 524.383px; top: 331.867px; transform: scaleX(1.04488);">n fraud, or willful injury to the person or </span><span style="left: 120.167px; top: 356.867px; transform: scaleX(1.02742);">property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the </span><span style="left: 120.167px; top: 381.9px; transform: scaleX(1.03843);">policy of the law.</span><span style="left: 272.833px; top: 381.9px;">”</span><span style="left: 287.833px; top: 381.9px; transform: scaleX(1.014);">Relevant judicial precedent further requires that waivers </span><span style="left: 793.45px; top: 381.9px; transform: scaleX(0.994174);">must be </span><span style="left: 120.167px; top: 406.95px; transform: scaleX(1.0149);">clear, unambiguous, and explicit in </span><span style="left: 436.783px; top: 406.95px; transform: scaleX(1.00141);">expressing the intent of the subscribing parties</span><span style="left: 851.05px; top: 406.95px; transform: scaleX(0.859488);">, as </span><span style="left: 120.167px; top: 431.95px; transform: scaleX(0.996838);">well as </span><span style="left: 186.45px; top: 431.95px; transform: scaleX(0.987298);">comprehensible in each of its essential details</span><span style="left: 589.45px; top: 431.95px; transform: scaleX(0.900901);">. </span><i><span style="left: 598.2px; top: 431.95px;">(</span><span style="left: 604.5px; top: 431.95px; transform: scaleX(0.909288);">Benedek v. PLC Santa Monica</span><span style="left: 120.167px; top: 456.983px; transform: scaleX(0.890722);">(2</span><span style="left: 136.417px; top: 456.983px; transform: scaleX(0.948639);">002) 104 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1356; </span><span style="left: 426.75px; top: 456.983px; transform: scaleX(0.899284);">Westlye v. Look Sports, Inc.</span><span style="left: 657.033px; top: 456.983px; transform: scaleX(0.958956);">(1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1715, </span><span style="left: 120.167px; top: 481.983px; transform: scaleX(0.89955);">1731</span><span style="left: 160.208px; top: 481.983px; transform: scaleX(0.954434);">."</span></i></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="left: 160.208px; top: 481.983px; transform: scaleX(0.954434);"></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="left: 160.208px; top: 481.983px; transform: scaleX(0.954434);">So even after acknowledging years of case law out there to protect consumer from onerous releases or waivers the Legislature still felt it was appropriate and ban outright the use of waivers and in a very broad fashion (not just for electric devices) or limiting the ban to large providers.<br /></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="left: 160.208px; top: 481.983px; transform: scaleX(0.954434);">The plaintiff attorneys association responded (some what inaccurately) that:</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="left: 180.2px; top: 580.867px; transform: scaleX(0.992902);">"The opposition argues th</span><span style="left: 415.5px; top: 580.867px; transform: scaleX(0.943954);">at such agreements are common. </span><span style="left: 725.867px; top: 580.867px; transform: scaleX(0.975136);">However, (1) [releases] being </span><span style="left: 180.2px; top: 605.867px; transform: scaleX(0.957509);">common does not make them right and (2) they are different from other rental </span><span style="left: 180.2px; top: 630.9px; transform: scaleX(1.00434);">agreements/operators. The companies manufactu</span><span style="left: 625.75px; top: 630.9px; transform: scaleX(0.972376);">re (Editor: that is not true in all circumstances) and place e</span><span style="left: 749.667px; top: 630.9px;">-</span><span style="left: 755.917px; top: 630.9px; transform: scaleX(0.983884);">scooters into the </span><span style="left: 180.2px; top: 655.9px; transform: scaleX(1.01711);">stream of commerce and are more akin to a product manufacturer and/or </span><span style="left: 180.2px; top: 680.95px; transform: scaleX(1.02434);">retailer and less like an innocent rental agency with no control over the product. </span><span style="left: 180.2px; top: 704.7px; transform: scaleX(1.02412);">Also, the manufacturers have the exclusive control to fix/maintain the</span><span style="left: 823.5px; top: 704.7px; transform: scaleX(0.947551);"> scooters. (Editor: this is is also not always accurate) </span><span style="left: 180.2px; top: 729.733px; transform: scaleX(1.03085);">When a driver rents a vehicle, he or she is not required to waive the liability of </span><span style="left: 180.2px; top: 754.733px; transform: scaleX(0.995792);">car defects; neither should a scooter rider."</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="left: 180.2px; top: 754.733px; transform: scaleX(0.995792);"><span style="left: 186.45px; top: 1123.87px; transform: scaleX(1.00209);"> The Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) responded that "</span></span><span style="left: 180.2px; top: 754.733px; transform: scaleX(0.995792);"><span style="left: 186.45px; top: 1123.87px; transform: scaleX(1.00209);"><span style="left: 180.2px; top: 182.983px; transform: scaleX(0.999563);">The scooter manufacturer has no way </span><span style="left: 180.2px; top: 207.983px; transform: scaleX(1.03072);">of exerting control over the scooter rider and does not deserve full legal </span><span style="left: 180.2px; top: 233.033px; transform: scaleX(1.0041);">responsibility for accidents that may occur as a resul</span><span style="left: 647.05px; top: 233.033px; transform: scaleX(1.01713);">t of a rider’s behavior.</span>" The Legislative analyst responded that "assumption of risk" can still be asserted but I would point out if the defendant is in fact a product manufacturer or in the stream of distribution "assumption of risk" is not available as a defense in a pure product liability case.<br /></span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="left: 180.2px; top: 754.733px; transform: scaleX(0.995792);"><span style="left: 186.45px; top: 1123.87px; transform: scaleX(1.00209);">If you want to see the full bill analysis click <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1teGE1ffEfPr4C_uX5O7ByTD83YHtwPad/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">here</a>. It is worth a read.</span></span><br /><span style="left: 556.917px; top: 1201.45px; transform: scaleX(1.03111);"></span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;"><span>The entire bill as it exists today is set forth below. This bill was l</span>ast amended in June of 2019 and it is just now coming up for a hearing with the CA Senate Judiciary Committee on August 18, 2020. Don't ask why. It passed out of committee on 8/19/20 and is now set for a 'third reading". This is part of the problem with the CA legislature. Surprise hearings on dormant bills months down the road. Maybe that's planned. August 31 is the last day to pass the bill.<br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">The committee can be reached at: <br />State Capitol<br />Room 2187<br />Sacramento, CA 95814<br />Phone: (916) 651-4113<br />Fax: (916) 403-7394 <br />Email: sjud.fax@sen.ca.gov</span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;"></span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">The bill author can be reached <a href="https://lcmspubcontact.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/ContactPopup.php?district=AD66" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></p><p><i><b><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">FINAL LANGUAGE OF BILL AWAITING SIGNATURE BY GOV. NEWSOM LIKELY WITHIN 30 DAYS:</span></b></i></p><div id="bill"><div style="text-transform: uppercase;"><h2 style="text-align: left;">The people of the State of California do enact as follows:</h2><br /></div><div id="s10.8864125984826544"><div class="ActionLine" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;"><h3 style="display: inline; font-weight: bold;">SECTION 1.</h3> Title 10.1 (commencing with Section 2505) is added to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, to read:</div><div><div><div id="id_344A8753-D85C-48E1-9959-0BAE89833D30"><div><h4 style="text-align: left;">TITLE 10.1. Shared Mobility Devices</h4></div></div><div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;"><h6 style="display: inline;">2505.</h6> (a) For purposes of this title:</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(1) “Shared
mobility device” means an electrically motorized board as defined in
Section 313.5 of the Vehicle Code, motorized scooter as defined in
Section 407.5 of the Vehicle Code, electric bicycle as defined in
Section 312.5 of the Vehicle Code, bicycle as defined in Section 231 of
the Vehicle Code, or other similar personal transportation device,
except as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 415 of the Vehicle
Code, that is made available to the public by a shared mobility service
provider for shared use and transportation in exchange for financial
compensation via a digital application or other electronic or digital
platform.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(2) “Shared mobility
service provider” or “provider” means a person or entity that offers,
makes available, or provides a shared mobility device in exchange for
financial compensation or membership via a digital application or other
electronic or digital platform.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(b) Before
distribution of a shared mobility device, a shared mobility service
provider shall enter into an agreement with, or obtain a permit from,
the city or county with jurisdiction over the area of use. The agreement
or permit shall, at a minimum, require that the shared mobility service
provider maintain commercial general liability insurance coverage with a
carrier doing business in California, with limits not less than one
million dollars ($1,000,000) for each occurrence for bodily injury or
property damage, including contractual liability, personal injury, and
product liability and completed operations, and not less than five
million dollars ($5,000,000) aggregate for all occurrences during the
policy period. The insurance shall not exclude coverage for injuries or
damages caused by the shared mobility service provider to the shared
mobility device user.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(c) (1) A city
or county that authorizes a provider to operate within its jurisdiction
on or after January 1, 2021, shall adopt rules for the operation,
parking,
and maintenance of shared mobility devices before a provider may
offer any shared mobility device for rent or use in the city or county
by any of the following:</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(A) Ordinance.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(B) Agreement.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(C) Permit terms.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(2) A
city or county that authorized a provider to operate within its
jurisdiction before January 1, 2021, and continues to provide that
authorization shall adopt rules for the operation, parking, and
maintenance of shared mobility devices by January 1,
2022, by any of the following:</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(A) Ordinance.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(B) Agreement.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(C) Permit terms.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(3) A provider shall comply with all
applicable rules, agreements, and permit terms established pursuant to this subdivision.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(d) Nothing
in this section shall prohibit a city or county from adopting any
ordinance or regulation that is not inconsistent with this title.</div></div></div></div></div><div id="s20.7205463857218996"><div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;"><h3 style="display: inline; font-weight: bold;">SEC. 2.</h3> The
provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or
its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other
provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid
provision or application.</div></div></div></div><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: medium;">OLDER VERSION OF THE BILL BELOW: <br /></span></p><p></p><table align="center" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse;"><tbody><tr><td align="center" id="bill_authors"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Introduced by Assembly Member Muratsuchi<br /></span></td></tr><tr><td align="center" class="textcenter" id="bill_intro_date"><br />February 21, 2019</td></tr></tbody></table><hr /><br clear="all" /><div id="title"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
An act to add Title 10.1 (commencing with Section 2505) to Part 4 of
Division 3 of the Civil Code, relating to mobility devices. </span></div><br clear="all" /><br clear="all" /><div align="center"><h2>LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST</h2></div><br /><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;"><span id="subject">AB 1286, as amended, Muratsuchi.
Shared mobility devices: agreements.</span></div><div><span id="digesttext"><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">Existing
law regulates contracts for particular transactions, including those in
which one person agrees to give to another person the temporary
possession and use of personal property, other than money for reward,
and the latter agrees to return the property to the former at a future
time.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">This bill would require a
shared mobility service provider, as defined, to enter into an agreement
with, or obtain a permit from, the city or county with jurisdiction
over the area of use. The bill would require that the provider maintain a
specified amount of commercial general liability insurance and would
prohibit the provider from including specified provisions in a user
agreement before distributing a shared mobility device within that
jurisdiction. The bill would define shared mobility device to mean an
electrically motorized board, motorized scooter,
electric bicycle, bicycle, or other similar personal transportation
device, except as provided.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">This
bill would require a city or county that authorizes a shared mobility
device provider to operate within its jurisdiction on or after January
1, 2020, to adopt operation, parking,<span style="color: red;"><strike> maintenance, and safety rules</strike></span><span class="blue_text" style="color: blue;"><i> and maintenance rules, as provided,</i></span>
regarding the use of the shared mobility devices in its jurisdiction
before the provider may offer shared mobility devices for rent or use.
The bill would require a city or county that authorized a provider to
operate within its jurisdiction before January 1, 2020, and continues to
provide that authorization to adopt<span style="color: red;"><strike> those</strike></span> operation, parking,<span style="color: red;"><strike> maintenance, and safety rules</strike></span><span class="blue_text" style="color: blue;"><i>
and maintenance rules, as provided,</i></span> by January 1, 2021.</div></span></div><span class="hidden"><h2>Digest Key</h2></span><span id="vote">
Vote:
<span style="text-transform: lowercase;">MAJORITY</span> </span><span id="appropriation">
Appropriation:
<span style="text-transform: lowercase;">NO</span> </span><span id="fiscalcommittee">
Fiscal Committee:
<span style="text-transform: lowercase;">NO</span> </span><span id="localprogram">
Local Program:
<span style="text-transform: lowercase;">NO</span> </span><hr /><span class="hidden"><h2>Bill Text</h2></span><div id="bill"><div style="text-transform: uppercase;"><h2 style="text-align: left;">The people of the State of California do enact as follows:</h2><br /></div><div id="s10.6676139225923122"><div class="ActionLine" style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;"><h3 style="display: inline; font-weight: bold;">SECTION 1.</h3> Title 10.1 (commencing with Section 2505) is added to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, to read:</div><div><div><div id="id_344A8753-D85C-48E1-9959-0BAE89833D30"><div><h4 style="text-align: left;">TITLE 10.1. Shared Mobility Devices</h4></div></div><div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;"><h6 style="display: inline;">2505.</h6> (a) For purposes of this title:</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(1) “Shared
mobility device” means an electrically motorized board as defined in
Section 313.5 of the Vehicle Code, motorized scooter as defined in
Section 407.5 of the Vehicle Code, electric bicycle as defined in
Section 312.5 of the Vehicle Code, bicycle as defined in Section 231 of
the Vehicle Code, or other similar personal transportation device,
except as provided in subdivision (b) of Section 415 of the Vehicle
Code, that is made available to the public by a shared mobility service
provider for shared use and transportation in exchange for financial
compensation via a digital application or other electronic or digital
platform.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(2) “Shared mobility
service provider” or “provider” means a person or entity that offers,
makes available, or provides a shared mobility device in exchange for
financial compensation or membership via a digital application or other
electronic or digital platform.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(b) Before
distribution of a shared mobility device, a shared mobility service
provider shall enter into an agreement with, or obtain a permit from,
the city or county with jurisdiction over the area of use. The agreement
or permit shall, at a minimum, require that the provider comply with
both of the following requirements:</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(1) <span style="color: red;"><strike>Requires </strike></span><span class="blue_text" style="color: blue;"><i>Require
that </i></span>the shared mobility service provider<span style="color: red;"><strike> to</strike></span>
maintain commercial general liability insurance coverage with a carrier
doing business in California, with limits not less than one million
dollars ($1,000,000) for each occurrence for bodily injury or property
damage, including contractual liability, personal injury, and product
liability and completed operations, and not less than five million
dollars ($5,000,000) aggregate for all occurrences during the policy
period. The insurance shall not exclude coverage for injuries or damages
caused
by the shared mobility service provider to the shared mobility
device user.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(2) The shared mobility
provider agreement between the provider and a user shall not contain a
provision by which the user waives, releases, or in any way limits their
legal rights or remedies under the agreement.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(c) (1) A city or county that authorizes a provider to operate within its jurisdiction on or after January 1, 2020, shall adopt<span class="blue_text" style="color: blue;"><i> rules for the</i></span> operation, parking,<span style="color: red;"><strike> maintenance, and safety rules regarding the use</strike></span><span class="blue_text" style="color: blue;"><i>
and maintenance</i></span> of shared mobility devices before a provider may offer any shared mobility device for rent or use in the city or<span style="color: red;"><strike> county.</strike></span><span class="blue_text" style="color: blue;"><i> county by any of the following:</i></span></div><span class="blue_text" style="color: blue;"><i><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(A) Ordinance.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(B) Agreement.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(C) Permit terms.</div></i></span><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(2) A
city or county that authorized a provider to operate within its
jurisdiction before January 1, 2020, and continues to provide that
authorization shall adopt<span class="blue_text" style="color: blue;"><i>
rules for the</i></span> operation, parking,<span style="color: red;"><strike> maintenance, and safety rules regarding the use</strike></span><span class="blue_text" style="color: blue;"><i> and maintenance</i></span> of shared mobility devices by January 1,<span style="color: red;"><strike> 2021.</strike></span><span class="blue_text" style="color: blue;"><i> 2021, by any of the following:</i></span></div><span class="blue_text" style="color: blue;"><i><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(A) Ordinance.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(B) Agreement.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(C) Permit terms.</div></i></span><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(3) A provider shall comply with all<span style="color: red;"><strike> operation, parking, maintenance, and safety rules</strike></span><span class="blue_text" style="color: blue;"><i>
applicable rules, agreements, and permit terms</i></span> established pursuant to this subdivision.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;">(d) Nothing
in this section shall prohibit a city or county from adopting any
ordinance or regulation that is not inconsistent with this title.</div></div></div></div></div><div id="s20.10590341807905246"><div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;"><h3 style="display: inline; font-weight: bold;">SEC. 2.</h3> The
provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or
its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other
provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid
provision or application.</div><div style="margin: 0px 0px 1em;"> </div></div></div></div><p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"></span></p><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: arial;"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2020 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comLong Beach, CA, USA33.7700504 -118.19373951.1816609958278335 -153.3499895 66.358439804172178 -83.0374895tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-31104323273856674692020-05-21T13:17:00.002-07:002020-05-21T13:22:28.109-07:0016 CFR 1512 to 1512.20 (part 1512) Requirements for Bicycles and E Bikes (version date Jan 2019)Please note that the <a href="https://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/requirements-for-bicycles-16-cfr-part.html" target="_blank">prior post of 16 CFR 1512</a> is of an older version. Please use this version. For e bikes please note section 1512.2(a)(2) for the federal definition of an e bike.<br />
<br />
Code of Federal Regulations<br />
Title 16 - Commercial Practices<br />
Volume: 2<br />
Date: 2019-01-01<br />
Original Date: 2019-01-01<br />
<br />
Title: PART 1512 - REQUIREMENTS FOR BICYCLES<br />
<br />
Context: Title 16 - Commercial Practices. CHAPTER II - CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION. SUBCHAPTER C - FEDERAL HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ACT REGULATIONS.<br />
<br />
Pt. 1512<br />
PART 1512—REQUIREMENTS FOR BICYCLES<br />
<br />
Subpart A—Regulations<br />
Sec.<br />
1512.1<br />
Scope.<br />
1512.2<br />
Definitions.<br />
1512.3<br />
Requirements in general.<br />
1512.4<br />
Mechanical requirements.<br />
1512.5<br />
Requirements for braking system.<br />
1512.6<br />
Requirements for steering system.<br />
1512.7<br />
Requirements for pedals.<br />
1512.8<br />
Requirements for drive chain.<br />
1512.9<br />
Requirements for protective guards.<br />
1512.10<br />
Requirements for tires.<br />
1512.11<br />
Requirements for wheels.<br />
1512.12<br />
Requirements for wheel hubs.<br />
1512.13<br />
Requirements for front fork.<br />
1512.14<br />
Requirements for fork and frame assembly.<br />
1512.15<br />
Requirements for seat.<br />
1512.16<br />
Requirements for reflectors.<br />
1512.17<br />
Other requirements.<br />
1512.18<br />
Tests and test procedures.<br />
1512.19<br />
Instructions and labeling.<br />
1512.20<br />
Separability.<br />
Subpart B—Policies and Interpretations [Reserved]<br />
<br />
.<br />
Figure 1 to Part 1512—Bicycle Front Fork Cantilever Bending Test Rig<br />
Figures 2 and 3 to Part 1512—Handlebar Stem Loading and Entrance 8 Observation Angles<br />
Figure 5 to Part 1512—Typical Handbrake Actuator Showing Grip Dimension<br />
Figures 6 and 7 to Part 1512—Toe Clearance and Chain Guard Requirements<br />
Figure 8 to Part 1512—Reflectorized Bicycle Wheel Rim Abrasion Test Device<br />
Table 1 to Part 1512—Minimum Candlepower per Incident Foot-Candle for Clear Reflector 1<br />
Table 2 to Part 1512—Minimum Candlepower per Incident Foot-Candle for Clear Reflector 1<br />
Table 3 to Part 1512—Minimum Acceptable Values for the Quantity A Defined in the Retroreflective Tire and Rim Test Procedure<br />
Table 4 to Part 1512—Relative Energy Distribution of Sources<br />
Authority:<br />
Secs. 2(f)(1)(D), (q)(1)(A), (s), 3(e)(1), 74 Stat. 372, 374, 375, as amended, 80 Stat. 1304-05, 83 Stat. 187-89 (15 U.S.C. 1261, 1262); Pub. L. 107-319, 116 Stat. 2776.<br />
Source:<br />
43 FR 60034, Dec. 22, 1978, unless otherwise noted.<br />
Subpart A—Regulations<br />
<br />
§ 1512.1 Scope.<br />
This part sets forth the requirements for a bicycle as defined in § 1512.2(a) (except a bicycle that is a “track bicycle” or a “one-of-a-kind bicycle” as defined in § 1512.2 (d) and (e)) which is not a banned article under § 1500.18(a)(12) of this chapter.<br />
<br />
§ 1512.2 Definitions.<br />
For the purposes of this part:<br />
(a) Bicycle means:<br />
(1) A two-wheeled vehicle having a rear drive wheel that is solely human-powered;<br />
(2) A two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 h.p.), whose maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20 mph.<br />
(b) Sidewalk bicycle means a bicycle with a seat height of no more than 635 mm (25.0 in); the seat height is measured with the seat adjusted to its highest position. Recumbent bicycles are not included in this definition.<br />
(c) Seat height means the dimension from the point on the seat surface intersected by the seat post center line (or the center of the seating area if no seat post exists) and the ground plane, as measured with the wheels aligned and in a plane normal to the ground plane.<br />
(d) Track bicycle means a bicycle designed and intended for sale as a competitive velodrome machine having no brake levers or calipers, single crank-to-wheel ratio, and no free-wheeling feature between the rear wheel and the crank.<br />
(e) One-of-a-kind bicycle means a bicycle that is uniquely constructed to the order of an individual consumer other than by assembly of stock or production parts.<br />
(f) Normal riding position means that the rider is seated on the bicycle with both feet on the pedals and both hands on the handlegrips (and in a position that allows operation of handbrake levers if so equipped); the seat and handlebars may be adjusted to positions judged by the rider to be comfortable.<br />
(g) Recumbent bicycle means a bicycle in which the rider sits in a reclined position with the feet extended forward to the pedals.<br />
[43 FR 60034, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 68 FR 7073, Feb. 12, 2003; 76 FR 27888, May 13, 2011]<br />
<br />
§ 1512.3 Requirements in general.<br />
Any bicycle subject to the regulations in this part shall meet the requirements of this part in the condition to which it is offered for sale to consumers; any bicycle offered for sale to consumers in disassembled or partially assembled condition shall meet these requirements after assembly according to the manufacturer's instructions. For the purpose of compliance with this part, where the metric and English units are not equal due to the conversion process the less stringent requirement will prevail.<br />
<br />
§ 1512.4 Mechanical requirements.<br />
(a) Assembly. Bicycles shall be manufactured such that mechanical skills required of the consumer for assembly shall not exceed those possessed by an adult of normal intelligence and ability.<br />
(b) Sharp edges. There shall be no unfinished sheared metal edges or other sharp parts on assembled bicycles that are, or may be, exposed to hands or legs; sheared metal edges that are not rolled shall be finished so as to remove any feathering of edges, or any burrs or spurs caused during the shearing process.<br />
(c) Integrity. There shall be no visible fracture of the frame or of any steering, wheel, pedal, crank, or brake system component resulting from testing in accordance with: The handbrake loading and performance test, § 1512.18(d); the foot brake force and performance test, § 1512.18(e); and the road test, § 1512.18(p) (or the sidewalk bicycle proof test, § 1512.18(q)).<br />
(d) Attachment hardware. All screws, bolts, or nuts used to attach or secure components shall not fracture, loosen, or otherwise fail their intended function during the tests required in this part. All threaded hardware shall be of sufficient quality to allow adjustments and maintenance. Recommended quality thread form is specified in Handbook H28, “Screw Thread Standards for Federal Service,” 1 issued by the National Bureau of Standards, Department of Commerce; recommended mechanical properties are specified in ISO Recommendation R898, “Mechanical Properties of Fasteners,” and in ISO Recommendations 68, 262, and 263, “General Purpose Screw Threads.” 2<br />
Footnote(s):<br />
1 Copies may be obtained from: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.<br />
Footnote(s):<br />
2 Copies may be obtained from: American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, New York 10018.<br />
(e)-(f) [Reserved]<br />
(g) Excluded area. There shall be no protrusions located within the area bounded by (1) a line 89 mm (31/2 in) to the rear of and parallel to the handlebar stem; (2) a line tangent to the front tip of the seat and intersecting the seat mast at the top rear stay; (3) the top surface of the top tube; and (4) a line connecting the front of the seat (when adjusted to its highest position) to the junction where the handlebar is attached to the handlebar stem. The top tube on a female bicycle model shall be the seat mast and the down tube or tubes that are nearest the rider in the normal riding position. Control cables no greater than 6.4 mm (1/4 in) in diameter and cable clamps made from material not thicker than 4.8 mm (3/16 in) may be attached to the top tube.<br />
(h) [Reserved]<br />
(i) Control cable ends. Ends of all accessible control cables shall be provided with protective caps or otherwise treated to prevent unraveling. Protective caps shall be tested in accordance with the protective cap and end-mounted devices test, § 1512.18(c), and shall withstand a pull of 8.9 N (2.0 lbf).<br />
(j) Control cable abrasion. Control cables shall not abrade over fixed parts and shall enter and exit cable sheaths in a direction in line with the sheath entrance and exit so as to prevent abrading.<br />
[43 FR 60034, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 76 FR 27888, May 13, 2011]<br />
<br />
§ 1512.5 Requirements for braking system.<br />
(a) Braking system. Bicycles shall be equipped with front- and rear-wheel brakes or rear-wheel brakes only.<br />
(b) Handbrakes. Handbrakes shall be tested at least ten times by applying a force sufficient to cause the handlever to contact the handlebar, or a maximum of 445 N (100 lbf), in accordance with the loading test, § 1512.18(d)(2), and shall be rocked back and forth with the weight of a 68.1 kg (150 lb) rider on the seat with the same handbrake force applied in accordance with the rocking test, § 1512.18(d)(2)(iii); there shall be no visible fractures, failures, movement of clamps, or misalignment of brake components.<br />
(1) Stopping distance. A bicycle equipped with only handbrakes shall be tested for stopping distance by a rider of at least 68.1 kg (150 lb) weight in accordance with the performance test, § 1512.18(d)(2) (v) and (vi), and shall have a stopping distance of no greater than 4.57 m (15 ft) from the actual test speed as determined by the equivalent ground speed specified in § 1512.18(d)(2)(vi).<br />
(2) Hand lever access. Hand lever mechanisms shall be located on the handlebars in a position that is readily accessible to the rider when in a normal riding position.<br />
(3) Grip dimension. The grip dimension (maximum outside dimension between the brake hand lever and the handlebars in the plane containing the centerlines of the handgrip and the hand brake lever) shall not exceed 89 mm (31/2 in) at any point between the pivot point of the lever and lever midpoint; the grip dimension for sidewalk bicycles shall not exceed 76 mm (3 in). The grip dimension may increase toward the open end of the lever but shall not increase by more than 12.7 mm (1/2 in) except for the last 12.7 mm (1/2 in) of the lever. (See figure 5 of this part 1512.)<br />
(4) Attachment. Brake assemblies shall be securely attached to the frame by means of fasteners with locking devices such as a lock washer, locknut, or equivalent and shall not loosen during the rocking test, § 1512.18(d)- (2)(iii). The cable anchor bolt shall not cut any of the cable strands.<br />
(5) Operating force. A force of less than 44.5 N (10 lbf) shall cause the brake pads to contact the braking surface of the wheel when applied to the handlever at a point 25 mm (1.0 in) from the open end of the handlever.<br />
(6) Pad and pad holders. Caliper brake pad shall be replaceable and adjustable to engage the braking surface without contacting the tire or spokes and the pad holders shall be securely attached to the caliper assembly. The brake pad material shall be retained in its holder without movement when the bicycle is loaded with a rider of at least 68.1 kg (150 lb) weight and is rocked forward and backward as specified in the rocking test, § 1512.18(d)(2)(iii).<br />
(7) [Reserved]<br />
(8) Hand lever location. The rear brake shall be actuated by a control located on the right handlebar and the front brake shall be actuated by a control located on the left handlebar. The left-hand/right-hand locations may be reversed in accordance with an individual customer order. If a single hand lever is used to actuate both front and rear brakes, it shall meet all applicable requirements for hand levers and shall be located on either the right or left handlebar in accordance with the customer's preference.<br />
(9) Hand lever extensions. Bicycles equipped with hand lever extensions shall be tested with the extension levers in place and the hand lever extensions shall also be considered to be hand levers.<br />
(c) Footbrakes. All footbrakes shall be tested in accordance with the force test, § 1512.18(e)(2), and the measured braking force shall not be less than 178 N (40 lbf) for an applied pedal force of 310 N (70 lbf).<br />
(1) Stopping distance. Bicycles equipped with footbrakes (except sidewalk bicycles) shall be tested in accordance with the performance test, § 1512.18(e)(3), by a rider of at least 68.1 kg (150 lb) weight and shall have a stopping distance of no greater than 4.57 m (15 ft) from an actual test speed of at least 16 km/h (10 mph). If the bicycle has a footbrake only and the equivalent groundspeed of the bicycle is in excess of 24 km/h (15 mph) (in its highest gear ratio at a pedal crank rate of 60 revolutions per minute), 3 the stopping distance shall be 4.57 m (15 ft) from an actual test speed of 24 km/h (15 mph) or greater.<br />
Footnote(s):<br />
3 This is proportional to a gear development greater than 6.67 m (21.9 ft) in the bicycle's highest gear ratio. Gear development is the distance the bicycle travels in meters, in one crank revolution.<br />
(2) Operating force. Footbrakes shall be actuated by a force applied to the pedal in a direction opposite to that of the drive force, except where brakes are separate from the drive pedals and the applied force is in the same direction as the drive force.<br />
(3) Crank differential. The differential between the drive and brake positions of the crank shall be not more than 60° with the crank held against each position under a torque of no less than 13.6 N-m (10 ft-lb).<br />
(4) Independent operation. The brake mechanism shall function independently of any drive-gear positions or adjustments.<br />
(d) Footbrakes and handbrakes in combination. Bicycles equipped with footbrakes and handbrakes shall meet all the requirements for footbrakes in § 1512.5(c), including the tests specified. In addition, if the equivalent ground speed of the bicycle is 24 km/h (15 mph) or greater (in its highest gear ratio at a pedal crank rate of 60 revolutions per minute), 3 the actual test speed specified in § 1512.18(e)(3) shall be increased to 24 km/h (15 mph) and both braking systems may be actuated to achieve the required stopping distance of 4.57 m (15 ft).<br />
(e) Sidewalk bicycles. (1) Sidewalk bicycles shall not have handbrakes only.<br />
(2) Sidewalk bicycles with a seat height of 560 mm (22 in) or greater (with seat height adjusted to its lowest position) shall be equipped with a footbrake meeting all the footbrake requirements of § 1512.5(c), including the specified tests except that the braking force transmitted to the rear wheel shall be in accordance with the sidewalk bicycle footbrake force tests, § 1512.18(f).<br />
(3) Sidewalk bicycles with a seat height less than 560 mm (22 in) (with seat height adjusted to its lowest position) and not equipped with a brake shall not have a freewheel feature. Such sidewalk bicycles equipped with a footbrake shall be tested for brake force in accordance with the sidewalk bicycle footbrake force test, § 1512.18(f). Such sidewalk bicycles not equipped with brakes shall be identified with a permanent label clearly visible from a distance of 3.1 m (10 ft) in daylight conditions and promotional display material and shipping cartons shall prominently display the words “No Brakes.”<br />
<br />
§ 1512.6 Requirements for steering system.<br />
(a) Handlebar stem insertion mark. Quill-type handlebar stems shall contain a permanent ring or mark which clearly indicates the minimum insertion depth of the handlebar stem into the fork assembly. The insertion mark shall not affect the structural integrity of the stem and shall not be less than 21/2 times the stem diameter from the lowest point of the stem. The stem strength shall be maintained for at least a length of one shaft diameter below the mark.<br />
(b) Handlebar stem strength. The handlebar stem shall be tested for strength in accordance with the handlebar stem test, § 1512.18(g), and shall withstand a force of 2000 N (450 lbf) for bicycles and 1000 N (225 lbf) for sidewalk bicycles.<br />
(c) Handlebar. Handlebars shall allow comfortable and safe control of the bicycle. Handlebar ends shall be symmetrically located with respect to the longitudinal axis of the bicycle and no more than 406 mm (16 in) above the seat surface when the seat is in its lowest position and the handlebar ends are in their highest position. This requirement does not apply to recumbent bicycles.<br />
(d) Handlebar ends. The ends of the handlebars shall be capped or otherwise covered. Handgrips, end plugs, control shifters, or other end-mounted devices shall be secure against a removal force of no less than 66.8 N (15 lbf) in accordance with the protective cap and end-mounted devices test, § 1512.18(c).<br />
(e) Handlebar and clamps. The handlebar and clamps shall be tested in accordance with the handlebar test, § 1512.18(h). Directions for assembly of the bicycle required in the instruction manual by § 1512.19(a)(2) shall include an explicit warning about the danger of damaging the stem-to-fork assembly and the risk of injury to the rider that can result from overtightening the stem bolt or other clamping device. The directions for assembly shall also contain a simple, clear, and precise statement of the procedure to be followed to avoid damaging the stem-to-fork assembly when tightening the stem bolt or other clamping device.<br />
[43 FR 60034, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 76 FR 27888, May 13, 2011]<br />
<br />
§ 1512.7 Requirements for pedals.<br />
(a) Construction. Pedals shall have right-hand/left-hand symmetry. The tread surface shall be present on both top and bottom surfaces of the pedal except that if the pedal has a definite preferred position, the tread surface need only be on the surface presented to the rider's foot.<br />
(b) Toe clips. Pedals intended to be used only with toe clips shall have toe clips securely attached to them and need not have tread surfaces. Pedals designed for optional use of toe clips shall have tread surfaces.<br />
(c) Pedal reflectors. Pedals for bicycles other than sidewalk bicycles shall have reflectors in accordance with § 1512.16(e). Pedals for sidewalk bicycles are not required to have reflectors.<br />
<br />
§ 1512.8 Requirements for drive chain.<br />
The drive chain shall operate over the sprockets without catching or binding. The tensile stength of the drive chain shall be no less than 8010 N (1,800 lbf) or 6230 N (1,400 lbf) for sidewalk bicycles.<br />
<br />
§ 1512.9 Requirements for protective guards.<br />
(a) Chain guard. Bicycles having a single front sprocket and a single rear sprocket shall have a chain guard that shall cover the top strand of the chain and at least 90° of the perimeter where the drive chain contacts the drive sprocket as shown in figure 7. The chain guard shall extend rearward to a point at least 8 cm (3.2 in.) forward of the centerline of the rear axle. The minimum width of the top area of the chain guard shall be twice the width of the chain in that portion forward of the rear wheel rim. The rear part of the top area may be tapered. The minimum width at the rear of the guard shall be one-half the chain width. Such chain guard shall prevent a rod of 9.4 mm (3/8 in.) diameter and 76 mm (3.0 in.) length from entrapment between the upper junction of the chain and the sprocket when introduced from the chain side of the bicycle in any direction within 45° from a line normal to the sprocket.<br />
(b) Derailleur guard. Derailleurs shall be guarded to prevent the drive chain from interfering with or stopping the rotation of the wheel through improper adjustments or damage.<br />
<br />
§ 1512.10 Requirements for tires.<br />
The manufacturer's recommended inflation pressure shall be molded into or onto the sidewall of the tire in lettering no less than 3.2 mm (1/8 in.) in height. The statement of recommended inflation pressure shall be in the English language utilizing Arabic numerals. (The following language is suggested to indicate recommended inflation pressure: “Inflate to __ PSI.”) After inflation to 110 percent of the recommended inflation pressure, the tire shall remain intact on the rim, including while being tested under a load of 2,000 N (450 lbf) in accordance with the rim test, § 1512.18(j). Tubular sew-up tires, nonpneumatic tires, and nonmolded wired-on tires are exempt from this section.<br />
<br />
§ 1512.11 Requirements for wheels.<br />
(a) Spokes. There shall be no missing spokes.<br />
(b) Alignment. The wheel assembly shall be aligned such that no less than 1.6 mm (1/16 in.) clearance exists between the tire and fork or any frame member when the wheel is rotated to any position.<br />
(c) Rims. Rims shall retain the spokes and tire when side-loaded with 2000 N (450 lbf) and tested in accordance with the rim test, § 1512.18(j). Sidewalk bicycles need not meet this requirement.<br />
<br />
§ 1512.12 Requirements for wheel hubs.<br />
All bicycles (other than sidewalk bicycles) shall meet the following requirements:<br />
(a) Locking devices. Wheels shall be secured to the bicycle frame with a positive lock device. Locking devices on threaded axles shall be tightened to the manufacturer's specifications.<br />
(1) Rear wheels. There shall be no relative motion between the axle and the frame when a force of 1,780 N (400 lbf) is applied symmetrically to the axle for a period of 30 seconds in the direction of wheel removal.<br />
(2) Front wheels. Locking devices, except quick-release devices, shall withstand application of a torque in the direction of removal of 17 N-m (12.5 ft-lb).<br />
(b) Quick-release devices. Lever-operated, quick-release devices shall be adjustable to allow setting the lever position for tightness. Quick-release levers shall be clearly visible to the rider and shall indicate whether the levers are in a locked or unlocked position. Quick-release clamp action shall emboss the frame or fork when locked, except on fiber reinforced plastics.<br />
(c) Front hubs. Front hubs not equipped with lever-operated quick-release devices shall have a positive retention feature that shall be tested in accordance with the front hub retention test, § 1512.18(j)(3), to assure that when the locking devices are released the wheel will not separate from the fork.<br />
[43 FR 60034, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 76 FR 27888, May 13, 2011]<br />
<br />
§ 1512.13 Requirements for front fork.<br />
The front fork shall be tested for strength by application of at least 39.5 J (350 in-lb) of energy in accordance with the fork test, § 1512.18(k)(1), without visible evidence of fracture. Sidewalk bicycles need not meet this requirement.<br />
<br />
§ 1512.14 Requirements for fork and frame assembly.<br />
The fork and frame assembly shall be tested for strength by application of a load of 890 N (200 lbf) or at least 39.5 J (350 in-lb) of energy, whichever results in the greater force, in accordance with the frame test, § 1512.18(k)(2), without visible evidence of fracture or frame deformation that significantly limits the steering angle over which the wheel can be turned. Sidewalk bicycles are exempt from this section.<br />
<br />
§ 1512.15 Requirements for seat.<br />
(a) Seat limitations. No part of the seat, seat supports, or accessories attached to the seat shall be more than 125 mm (5.0 in) above the top of the seat surface at the point where the seat surface is intersected by the seat post axis. This requirement does not apply to recumbent bicycles.<br />
(b) Seat post. The seat post shall contain a permanent mark or ring that clearly indicates the minimum insertion depth (maximum seat-height adjustment); the mark shall not affect the structural integrity of the seat post. This mark shall be located no less than two seat-post diameters from the lowest point on the post shaft, and the post strength shall be maintained for at least a length of one shaft diameter below the mark. This requirement does not apply to bicycles with integrated seat masts, however, a permanent mark or other means to clearly indicate that the seat or seat posts is safely installed shall be provided.<br />
(c) Adjustment clamps. The seat adjustment clamps shall be capable of securing the seat in any position to which it can be adjusted and preventing movement of the seat in any direction under normal conditions of use. Following the road test, § 1512.18(p) (or the sidewalk bicycle proof test, § 1512.18(q), as applicable), the seat clamps shall be tested in accordance with the seat adjustment clamps and load test, § 1512.18(l).<br />
[43 FR 60034, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 76 FR 27888, May 13, 2011]<br />
<br />
§ 1512.16 Requirements for reflectors.<br />
Bicycles shall be equipped with reflective devices to permit recognition and identification under illumination from motor vehicle headlamps. The use of reflector combinations off the center plane of the bicycle (defined in § 1512.18(m)(2)) is acceptable if each reflector meets the requirements of this section and of § 1512.18 (m) and (n) and the combination of reflectors has a clear field of view of ±10° vertically and ±50° horizontally. Sidewalk bicycles are not required to have reflectors.<br />
(a) Front, rear, and pedal reflectors. There shall be an essentially colorless front-facing reflector, essentially colorless or amber pedal reflectors, and a red rear-facing reflector.<br />
(b) Side reflectors. There shall be retroreflective tire sidewalls or, alternatively, reflectors mounted on the spokes of each wheel, or, for non-caliper rim brake bicycles, retroreflective wheel rims. The center of spoke-mounted reflectors shall be within 76 mm (3.0 in.) of the inside of the rim. Side reflective devices shall be visible on each side of the wheel.<br />
(c) Front reflector. The reflector or mount shall not contact the ground plane when the bicycle is resting on that plane in any orientation. The optical axis of the reflector shall be directed forward within 5° of the horizontal-vertical alignment of the bicycle when the wheels are tracking in a straight line, as defined in § 1512.18(m)(2). The reflectors and/or mounts shall incorporate a distinct, preferred assembly method that shall insure that the reflector meets the optical requirements of this paragraph (c) when the reflector is attached to the bicycle. The front reflector shall be tested in accordance with the reflector mount and alignment test, § 1512.18(m).<br />
(d) Rear reflector. The reflector or mount shall not contact the ground plane when the bicycle is resting on that plane in any orientation. The reflector shall be mounted such that it is to the rear of the seat mast with the top of the reflector at least 76 mm (3.0 in) below the point on the seat surface that is intersected by the line of the seat post. The optical axis of the reflector shall be directed rearward within 5° of the horizontal-vertical alignment of the bicycle when the wheels are traveling in a straight line, as defined in § 1512.18(m)(2). The reflectors and/or mounts shall incorporate a distinct, preferred assembly method that shall insure that the reflector meets the optical requirements of this paragraph (d) when the reflector is attached to the bicycle. The rear reflector shall be tested in accordance with the reflector mount and alignment test, § 1512.18(m).<br />
(e) Pedal reflectors. Each pedal shall have reflectors located on the front and rear surfaces of the pedal. The reflector elements may be either integral with the construction of the pedal or mechanically attached, but shall be sufficiently recessed from the edge of the pedal, or of the reflector housing, to prevent contact of the reflector element with a flat surface placed in contact with the edge of the pedal.<br />
(f) Side reflectors. Reflectors affixed to the wheel spokes shall be mounted either flat on the spokes or within the spoke cage such that the angle between the optical axis and the normal to the plane of the wheel shall not exceed the angle of the spokes with the plane of the wheel. The reflectors shall not interfere with any wheel adjustments. The side-mounted reflector devices shall be essentially colorless or amber on the front wheel and essentially colorless or red on the rear wheel.<br />
(g) Reflector tests. The pedal, front-mount, rear-mount, and side-mount reflectors shall be tested in accordance with the reflector test, § 1512.18(n), to assure the reflectance values over the angles given in tables 1 and 2.<br />
(h) Retroreflective tire sidewalls. When retroreflective tire sidewalls are used in lieu of spoke-mounted reflectors, the reflecting material shall meet the following requirements:<br />
(1) The retroreflective material shall form a continuous circle on the sidewall.<br />
(2) The retroreflective material shall adhere to the tire such that after the tire has been subjected to a temperature of 50° ±3 °C (122° ±5.4 °F) for 30 minutes, the retroreflective material cannot be peeled or scraped away without removal of tire material.<br />
(3) The retroreflective material shall be as resistant to abrasion as is the adjacent sidewall material so that when retroreflective material is removed from the inflated tire by abrasion with a wet, steel bristle brush, tire material will be removed along with the retroreflective material.<br />
(4) The retroreflective material shall be tested for performance in accordance with the retroreflective tire test, § 1512.18(o), to assure the reflectance properties over the angles given in table 3. When a portion of the retroreflective material is selected (and the remainder is masked as specified in § 1512.18(o)(2)(i)), the selected portion shall not contact the ground plane when the assembled bicycle is resting on that plane in any orientation.<br />
(i) Retroreflective rims. When retroreflective rims are used in lieu of spoke-mounted reflectors or retroreflective tire sidewalls, the reflecting material shall meet the following requirements:<br />
(1) The retroreflective material shall form a continuous circle on the rim.<br />
(2) If the retroreflective material is applied to the rim in the form of a self-adhesive tape, the following requirement must be met: Use a sharp knife, razor blade, or similar instrument to carefully release an end of the tape material sufficient to be grasped between the thumb and finger. Grasp the freed tape end and gradually pull in a direction 90° to the plane of the rim. The tape material must break before additional separation (peeling) from the rim is observed.<br />
(3) After the retroreflective material is abraded in accordance with the abrasion test for retroreflective rims at § 1512.18(r), the rim must then be tested for performance in accordance with the retroreflective tire and rim test at § 1512.18(o), to assure the reflectance properties over the angles given in table 3.<br />
[43 FR 60034, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 45 FR 82627, 82628, Dec. 16, 1980]<br />
<br />
§ 1512.17 Other requirements.<br />
<br />
(a) Road test. Bicycles, other than sidewalk bicycles, shall be ridden at least 6.4 km (4.0 mi.) by a rider weighing at least 68.1kg (150 lb.) and travel five times over a 30.5 m (100 ft.) cleated course in accordance with the road test, § 1512.18(p), and shall exhibit stable handling, turning, and steering characteristics without difficulty of operation. There shall be no system or component failure of the structure, brakes, or tires, and there shall be no loosening or misalignment of the seat, handlebars, controls, or reflectors during or resulting from this test.<br />
(b) Sidewalk bicycle proof test. Sidewalk bicycles shall be dropped a distance of at least 300 mm (1.0 ft.) three times onto a paved surface with weights attached in accordance with the sidewalk bicycle proof test, § 1512.18(q). There shall be no fracture of wheels, frame, seat, handlebars, or fork during or resulting from this test.<br />
(c) Ground clearance. With the pedal horizontal and the pedal crank in its lowest position and any training wheels removed, it shall be possible to tilt the bicycle at least 25° from the vertical without the pedal or any other part (other than tires) contacting the ground plane.<br />
(d) Toe clearance. Bicycles not equipped with positive foot-retaining devices (such as toe clips) shall have at least 89 mm (31/2 in) clearance between the pedal and the front tire or fender (when turned to any position). The clearance shall be measured forward and parallel to the longitudinal axis of the bicycle from the center of either pedal to the arc swept by the tire or fender, whichever results in the least clearance. (See figure 6 of this part 1512.)<br />
<br />
§ 1512.18 Tests and test procedures.<br />
(a) Sharp edge test. [Reserved]<br />
(b) [Reserved]<br />
(c) Protective cap and end-mounted devices test. (Ref. § 1512.4(i), § 1512.6(d).) Any device suitable for exerting a removal force of at least 67 N (15 lbf) for protective caps and 8.9 N (2.0 lbf) for end caps at any point and in any direction may be used. All protective caps and end-mounted handlebar devices shall be tested to determine that they cannot be removed by application of the specified forces.<br />
(d) Handbrake loading and performance test: (Ref. § 1512.5(b)).<br />
(1) Apparatus. A spring scale or other suitable device for measuring the specified forces on the handbrake levers and a dry, clean, level, paved surface of adequate length.<br />
(2) Procedure. The loading test, § 1512.18(d)(2)(i), and the rocking test, § 1512.18(d)(2)(iii), shall be performed before the performance test, § 1512.18(d)(2)(v), is performed and no adjustments shall be made between these tests.<br />
(i) Loading test procedure. The hand levers shall be actuated with a force applied at a point no more than 25 mm (1.0 in) from the open end of the lever. If the hand lever contacts the handlebar (bottoms) before a force of 445 N (100 lbf) is reached, the loading may be stopped at that point, otherwise the loading shall be increased to at least 445 N (100 lbf). 4 Application of the loading force shall be repeated for a total of 10 times and all brake components shall be inspected.<br />
Footnote(s):<br />
4 For hand lever extensions, the loading shall be continued until a force of 445 N (100 lbf) is reached or the hand lever extension is in the same plane as the upper surface of the handlebars or the extension lever contacts the handlebars.<br />
(ii) Loading test criteria. There shall be no visible fractures, failures, misalignments, and clearances not in compliance with applicable parts of § 1512.5.<br />
(iii) Rocking test procedure. A weight of at least 68.1 kg (150 lb) shall be placed on the seat; the force required for the hand levers to contact the handlebars or 445 N (100 lbf), as determined in § 1512.18(d)(2), shall be applied to the hand levers; 4 and the bicycle shall be rocked forward and backward over a dry, clean, level, paved surface at least six times and for a distance of at least 76 mm (3 in) in each direction.<br />
(iv) Rocking test criteria. There shall be no loosening of the brake pads, pad holders, or cable and hand-lever securing devices or any other functional brake component.<br />
(v) Performance test procedure. The following test conditions, unless otherwise specified in this part 1512, shall be followed:<br />
(A) The bicycle shall be ridden over a dry, clean, smooth paved test course free from protruding aggregate. The test course shall provide a coefficient of friction of less then 1.0 and shall have a slope of less than 1 percent.<br />
(B) The wind velocity shall be less than 11 km/h (7 mph).<br />
(C) Only the brake system under test shall be actuated.<br />
(D) The bicycle shall attain the specified ground speed while the rider is in the normal riding position.<br />
(E) The rider shall remain in the normal riding position throughout the test.<br />
(F) The bicycle must be moving in a straight line at the start of brake application.<br />
(G) Corrections for velocity at the initiation of braking may be made. The corrected braking distance shall be computed as follow:<br />
S c = (V s / Vm)2 S m<br />
WHERE:<br />
S C = CORRECTED BRAKING DISTANCE,<br />
V S = SPECIFIED TEST VELOCITY.<br />
VM = MEASURED TEST VELOCITY,<br />
S M = MEASURED BRAKING DISTANCE.<br />
The test run is invalid if at the commencement of the test, the measured test speed of the bicycle is not less than nor greater than the test speed required by this part 1512 by 1.5 km/h (0.9 mph).<br />
(H) Four test runs are required. The stopping distance shall be determined by averaging the results of the four test runs.<br />
(I) The stopping distances specified are based on a rider weight of at least 68.1 kg (150 lb) and a maximum rider and weight combination of 91 kg (200 lb). Greater stopping distances are allowable for heavier riders and test equipment weights at the rate of 0.30 m per 4.5 kg (1.0 ft per 10 lb).<br />
(J) A test run is invalid if front-wheel lockup occurs.<br />
(vi) Performance test criteria. The stopping force applied to the hand lever at a point no closer than 25 mm (1.0 in) from the open end shall not exceed 178 N (40 lbf). Bicycles with an equivalent ground speed in excess of 24 km/h (15 mph) (in its highest gear ratio at a pedal crank rate of 60 revolutions per minute) 3 shall stop from an actual test speed of 24 km/h (15 mph) or greater within a distance of 4.57 m (15 ft); when the equivalent ground speed is less than 24 km/h (15 mph) under the same conditions, the bicycle shall stop from an actual test speed of 16 km/h (10 mph) or greater within a distance of 4.57 m (15 ft).<br />
Footnote(s):<br />
3 See footnote 3 to § 1512.5.<br />
(e) Footbrake force and performance test. (Ref. § 1512.5(c) (1) and (2)):<br />
(1) Apparatus. Suitable devices for exerting and measuring the required forces and a dry, clean, level, paved surface of adequate length.<br />
(2) Force test. The braking force shall be measured as the wheel is rotated in a direction of forward motion, and the braking force is measured in a direction tangential to the tire during a steady pull after the wheel completes one-half revolution but before the wheel completes one revolution. The brake shall be capable of producing a linearly proportional brake force for a gradually applied pedal force from 89 N to 310 N (20 to 70 lbf) and shall not be less than 178 N (40 lbf) for an applied pedal force of 310 N (70 lbf). All data points must fall within plus or minus 20 percent of the brake force, based on the measured brake load using the least square method of obtaining the best straight line curve.<br />
(3) Performance test. The procedure of § 1512.18(d)(2)(v) shall be followed to test the footbrake performance. The stopping distance shall be less than 4.57 m (15 ft) from an actual test speed of 16 km/h (10 mph). In addition, if the equivalent ground speed of the bicycle is in excess of 24 km/h (15 mph) (in its highest gear ratio at a pedal crank rate of 60 revolutions per minute), 3 the stopping distance shall be 4.57 m (15 ft) from an actual test speed of 24 km/h (15 mph) or greater.<br />
Note:<br />
No allowance shall be made for rider weight. See § 1512.5(d) for additional requirements for bicycles with both handbrakes and footbrakes.<br />
(f) Sidewalk bicycle footbrake force test. For sidewalk bicycles, the footbrake force test is the same as for bicycles except; the brake force transmitted to the rear wheel shall continually increase as the pedal force is increased from 44.5 N to 225 N (10 to 50 lbf). The ratio of applied pedal force to braking force shall not be greater than two-to-one.<br />
(g) Handlebar stem test. (Ref. § 1512.6(b)):<br />
(1) Procedure. The handlebar stem shall be tested for strength by applying a force of 2000 N (450 lbf), in a forward direction, for bicycles, or 1000 N (225 lbf) for sidewalk bicycles, at a point in line with the handlbar attachment point and at an angle of 45° from the stem centerline (See fig. 2).<br />
(2) Criteria. No visible fractures shall result from this test.<br />
(h) Handlebar test. (Ref. § 1512.6(e)):<br />
(1) Stem-to-fork clamp test—(i) Procedure. The handlebar and handlebar stem shall be assembled to the bicycle in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. The handlebar-fork assembly shall be subjected to a torque applied about the axis of the stem, and shall then be disassembled and examined for signs of structural damage including cracking, splitting, stripping of threads, bearing damage, and bulging of the stem and fork structures. The handlebar and handlebar stem components shall be inspected for visible signs of galling, gouging, and scoring not due to normal assembly and disassembly operations.<br />
(ii) Criteria. There shall be no visible movement between the stem and fork when a torque of 47 + 3, −0 N-m (35 + 2, −0 ft = lb) for bicycles and 20 + 3, −0 N-m (15 + 2, − 0 ft = lb) for sidewalk bicycles is applied to the handlebar about the stem-to-fork axis. There shall be no visible signs of damage to the stem-to-fork assembly or any component part thereof.<br />
(2) Handlebar strength and clamp test—(i) Procedure. The stem shall be in place on the bicycle or in an equivalent test fixture and secured according to manufacturer's instructions. A load shall be applied equally to each handlebar end in a direction to cause the greatest torque about the handlebar-to-stem clamp; deflection shall be measured along the line of applied force.<br />
(ii) Criteria. The handlebars shall support a force of no less than 445 N (100 lbf) or absorb no less than 22.6 J (200 in-lb) of energy through a maximum deflection of no more than 76 mm (3.0 in.); the handlebar clamp shall prevent rotational movement of the handlebars relative to the clamp, and there shall be no visible fractures.<br />
(i) Pedal slip test. [Reserved]<br />
(j) Rim test. (Ref. §§ 1512.10 and 1512.11(c)):<br />
(1) Procedure. Only one wheel need be tested if the front and rear wheel are of identical construction. The wheel to be tested shall be removed from the bicycle and be supported circumferentially around the tire sidewall. A load of 2000 N (450 lbf) shall be applied to the axle and normal to the plane of the wheel for at least 30 seconds. If the wheel hub is offset, the load shall be applied in the direction of the offset.<br />
(2) Criteria. The wheel and tire assembly shall be inspected for compliance with the requirements of § 1512.11(a) and shall be remounted on the bicycle according to the manufacturer's instructions and shall turn freely without roughness and shall comply with the requirement of § 1512.11(b).<br />
(3) Front hub retention test. (Ref. § 1512.12(c)).<br />
(i) Procedures. Front hub locking devices shall be released. When threaded nuts and axles are used, the nuts shall be open at least 360° from a finger tight condition. A separation force of at least 111 N (25 lb) shall be applied to the hub on a line along the slots in the fork ends.<br />
(ii) Criteria. The front hub shall not separate from the fork; fenders, mudguards, struts, and brakes shall not be allowed to restrain the separation.<br />
(k) Fork and frame test. (Ref. §§ 1512.13 and 1512.14):<br />
(1) Fork test—(i) Procedure. With the fork stem supported in a 76 mm (3.0 in) vee block and secured by the method illustrated in figure 1 of this part 1512, a load shall be applied at the axle attachment in a direction perpendicular to the centerline of the stem and against the direction of the rake. Load and deflection readings shall be recorded and plotted at the point of loading.<br />
(ii) Criteria. Energy of at least 39.5 J (350 in-lb) shall be absorbed with a deflection in the direction of the force of no more than 64 mm (21/2 in.).<br />
(2) Fork and frame assembly test—(i) Procedure. The fork, or one identical to that tested in accordance with the fork test, § 1512.18(k)(1), shall be replaced on the bicycle in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions; and a load of 890 N (200 lbf), or an energy of at least 39.5 J (350 in-lb), whichever results in the greater force, shall be applied to the fork at the axle attachment point against the direction of the rake in line with the rear wheel axle. The test load shall be counteracted by a force applied at the location of the rear axle during this test.<br />
(ii) Criteria. There shall be no visible evidence of fracture and no deformation of frame that significantly limits the steering angle over which the front wheel can be turned.<br />
(l) Seat adjustment clamps and load test. (Ref. § 1512.15(c)).<br />
(1) Procedure. A force of at least 668 N (150 lbf) shall be applied vertically downward (334 N (75 lbf) for sidewalk bicycles) to a point within 25 mm (1.0 in.) from either the front or rear of the seat, whichever produces the greatest torque on the seat clamp. After removal of this force, a force of 222 N (50 lbf) shall then be applied horizontally (111 N (25 lbf) for sidewalk bicycles) to a point within 25 mm (1.0 in.) from either the front or rear of the seat, whichever produces the greatest torque on the clamp.<br />
(2) Criteria. No movement of the seat with respect to the seat post, or of the seat post with respect to the bicycle frame, shall have resulted from application of the forces specified.<br />
(m) Reflector mount and alignment test. (Ref. § 1512.16 (c) and (d)):<br />
(1) Procedure. A force of 89 N (20 lbf) shall be applied to the reflector mount in at least three directions selected as most likely to affect its alignment. At least one of those directions shall be selected to represent a force that would be expected in lifting the bicycle by grasping the reflector.<br />
(2) Criteria. (i) During test: The optical axis of the reflector shall remain parallel within 15° to the line or intersection of the ground plane and the center plane of the bicycle defined as a plane containing both wheels and the centerlines of the down tube and seat mast.<br />
(ii) Post test: The optical axis of the reflector shall remain parallel within 5° to the line or intersection of the ground plane and the center plane of the bicycle defined as a plane containing both wheels and the centerlines of the down tube and seat mast.<br />
(n) Reflector test. (Ref. § 1512.16(g)):<br />
(1) Conditioning. The following conditioning in the order given shall be performed prior to testing for performance.<br />
(i) Warpage conditioning. The reflector shall be held in a preheated oven for at least one hour at 50° ±5 °C (122±5.4 °F). A pedal reflector may be conditioned integrally with its pedal.<br />
(ii) Mechanical impact conditioning. The reflector shall be mounted faceup in a manner similar to the way in which it is mounted on the bicycle. A 13 mm (1/2 in.) diameter polished steel ball shall be dropped normal to the center of the face of the reflector from a height of 0.76 m (30 in.). The ball may be guided by a tube with holes, but not restricted in free fall. Pedal reflectors are exempt from this impact conditioning.<br />
(iii) Moisture conditioning. The reflector shall be submerged in tap water in a suitable container. The container shall be pressurized in 17.2 kN/m2 (2.5 psi) (equivalent to 1.7 m (53/4 ft.)) of water for 15 minutes and then released.<br />
(2) Reflector performance test. (i) Arrangements for the reflector performance test shall be as shown in figure 3 and the distance D between the light source and the reflector shall be 30.5 m (100 ft.). The source of illumination shall be a lamp with a 51 mm (2.0 in.) effective diameter and a filament operating at 2,856±10 percent color temperature. The observation point shall be colocated (as close as practicable) with the source of illumination. The reflector shall be mounted with the center of the reflector at the center of rotation and at the same horizontal level as the source of illumination. Photometric measurements shall be made at the observation angles and entrance angles given in tables 1 and 2.<br />
(ii) The observation angle is the angle formed by a line from the point of observation to the center of the reflector with a second line from the center of the reflector to the source of illumination. The entrance angle is the angle between the optical axis of the reflector and a line from the center of the reflector to the source of illumination. The entrance angle shall be designated left, right, up, and down in accordance with the position of the source of illumination with respect to the axis of the reflector as viewed from behind the reflector when the plane of the observation angle is vertical and the receiver is above the source.<br />
(iii) Photometric measurements shall be made either visually or photoelectrically. With either method, the light reflected to the observation point shall be determined. Also, the illumination on the reflector from the source shall be measured.<br />
(iv) For visual measurements a comparison lamp, emitting light similar in spectral quality to the reflector, shall be located adjacent to the reflector (at an angle not to exceed 1/2°) and arranged so that the candlepower can be varied from 0.01 to 0.25 to make the intensity duplicate that of the reflector under test. The candlepower of the source of the illumination of the reflector under test shall be known or determined for this test. Means shall be provided to change the intensity of the source of illumination without changing the filament color temperature. The comparison lamp shall be designed to avoid reflection from the source of illumination back in the direction of the observer. It shall be of such size and so diffused that when viewed by the observer (through a 21/2 × reducing monocular), the candlepower can be readily compared and adjusted to that of the reflector. The observer shall have at least 10 minutes of dark adaption before making observations. For photoelectric measurements, the opening to the photocell shall not be more than 1/2 inch vertical by 1 inch horizontal.<br />
(v) Reflectors that mount on the bicycle in a fixed rotational position with respect to the bicycle, or the bicycle component on which they are mounted (such as pedals or spokes), shall be tested with a single orientation. Reflectors that do not mount on the bicycle in a fixed rotational position with respect to the bicycle shall be rotated about their axis through 360° to find the minimum candlepower per footcandle for each test point. If the measurement falls below the minimum requirement at any test point, the reflector shall be rotated ±5° about its axis from the angle where the minimum occurs, and the maximum candlepower per footcandle within this angle shall be the measured value.<br />
(vi) Should uncolored reflections from the front surface interfere with photometric readings at any test point the lowest reading and location within 1° above, below, right, and left of the test point shall meet the minimum requirement for the test point.<br />
(vii) A recommended coordinate system for definition of color is the “Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIE 1931)” system. In the coordinate system and when illuminated by the source defined in table 4 of this part 1512, a reflector will be considered to be red if its color falls within the region bounded by the red spectrum locus and the lines y = 0.980−x and y = 0.335; a reflector will be considered to be amber if its color falls within the region bounded by the yellow spectrum locus and the lines y = 0.382, y = 0.790−0.667x, and y = x−0.120.<br />
(o) Reflective tire and rim test (Ref. § 1512.16(h) and (i)):<br />
(1) Apparatus. Arrangements for the reflective intensity measurement shall be as shown in figure 3 of this part 1512. A light projector (having a maximum effective lens diameter of D/500, where D is the distance from the source to the retroreflective surface being measured) capable of projecting light of uniform intensity shall be used to illuminate the sample. The light falling on the sample shall have a color temperature of 2856°K + 10% (equivalent to a tungsten filament lamp operated at a color temperature of 2856°K + 10% having approximately the relative energy distribution given in table 4 of this part 1512). The light reflected from the test surface shall be measured with a photoelectric receiver, the response of which has been corrected for the spectral sensitivity of the average photopic human eye. The dimensions of the active area of the receiver shall be such that no point on the perimeter of the receiver is more than D/100 from its center (where d is the distance from the receiver to the retroreflective surface). Wheels used for the measurement of retroreflective tires or rims shall have all exposed metallic surfaces, including spokes, masked in flat black so that when measured these surfaces indicate no appreciable reflectance. The tire shall be mounted and fully inflated. Distances shall be measured from the plane of the wheel and the center of the hub. For the tests, the distance D between the projector and the center of the wheel and distance d between the center of the wheel and the receiver shall each be at least 15 m (50 ft.).<br />
(2) Procedure—(i) Masking. The reflecting strip to be tested shall be within two concentric circles, the larger of which is no more than 0.02 m (0.79 in.) greater in radius than the smaller. While additional reflecting material is permitted outside such boundaries, such additional material shall not be counted in determining the average width of the reflecting strip and shall be masked off with opaque, matte black tape in testing the reflecting material.<br />
(ii) Orientation. Every position of the reflecting strip on the rim or the mounted and fully inflated tire to be tested shall be oriented so that the normal to this portion is within 40° of parallel to the axis of rotation of the wheel.<br />
(iii) Measurement. Measure the distance d from the receiver to the center of the wheel and the minimum distance r from the axis of rotation of the wheel to the unmasked portion of the reflective strip. Measure the illumination incident on the reflective strip at uniform intervals of no more than 45° around the wheel, with the receiver oriented in the direction of the incident radiation. The average of such readings will be the mean illumination of the sample E. If any one of such readings differs by more than 10 percent from the mean illumination, then a more uniform source must be obtained. Measure the illumination of the receiver due to reflection from the retroreflective surface for each entrance angle and each observation angle given in table 3 of this part 1512. The entrance angle and the observation angle shall be in the same plane. A negative entrance angle (figure 3 of this part 1512) is specified when the entrance angle is small because the location of the receiver with respect to the direction of illumination becomes important for distinguishing between ordinary mirror-like reflection and retroreflection. The illumination incident on the test surface and the receiver shall be measured in the same units on a linear scale. Compute the ratio A for each combination of entrance angle and observation angle listed in table 3 as follows:<br />
A = [(Er / Es)(d2 / r)]<br />
WHERE:<br />
A = RATIO IN METERS,<br />
ER = ILLUMINATION INCIDENT UPON THE RECEIVER,<br />
ES = ILLUMINATION INCIDENT UPON A PLANE PERPENDICULAR TO THE INCIDENT RAY AT THE SPECIMEN POSITION (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ABOVE IN THIS PARAGRAPH (O)(2)(III) FOR AVERAGING), MEASURED IN THE SAME UNITS AS ER,<br />
D = THE DISTANCE IN METERS FROM THE RECEIVER TO THE CENTER OF THE WHEEL,<br />
R = THE MINIMUM RADIUS IN METERS OF THE BOUNDARY CIRCLES OF THE RETROREFLECTIVE STRIP.<br />
The minimum value of A shall be that listed in table 3 of this part 1512 for each combination of entrance angle and observation angle. The plane containing the entrance angle and the plane containing the observation angle shall coincide. In table 3, a positive entrance angle corresponds to the case in which the line of sight to the receiver lies between the line of incidence and the optic axis of the reflector, and a negative entrance angle corresponds to the case in which the line of incidence lies between the line of sight of the receiver and optic axis of the reflector.<br />
(iv) Criteria. The ratio A as defined in § 1512.18(o)(2)(iii) shall not be less than:<br />
A = 4Cos2θ/[1 + (Φ/0.225)3/2]<br />
where A is ratio in meters, θ is the entrance angle in degrees, and Φ is the observation angle in degrees. The criterion applies only for entrance angles from 0° to 40° and observation angles from 0.2° to 1.5°, and performance is not specified beyond this range. The values of A in table 3 are obtained from the above formula by rounding up to two significant figures. Except in cases in which the performance of the reflector is seriously questionable, a reflector with A at least the value given in table 3 at each of the six combinations of entrance and observation angles will be considered to satisfy this criteria.<br />
(p) Road test. (Ref. §§ 1512.15(c) and 1512.17(a)):<br />
(1) Procedure. The bicycle shall be ridden at least 6.4 km (4.0 mi.) by a rider weighing at least 68.1 kg (150 lb.) with the tires inflated to maximum recommended pressure. Travel shall include riding the bicycle five times over a 30 m (100 ft.) course of wooden cleats fastened to a paved surface. The cleats shall be a full 25 mm (1.0 in.) high by 51 mm (2.0 in.) wide lumber with a 12 mm by 12 mm (1/2 in. by 1/2 in.) chamfer of 45° on the corners contacting the tires. The cleats shall be spaced every 1.8 m (6.0 ft.) over the 30 m (100 ft.) course. The bicycle shall be ridden over the cleated course at a speed of at least 24 km/hr (15 mph) with the rider firmly seated.<br />
(2) Criteria. The bicycle shall exhibit stable handling, turning, and steering characteristics without difficulty of operation. There shall be no system or component failure of the structure, brakes, or tires and there shall be no loosening or misalignment of the seat, handlebars, controls, or reflectors.<br />
(q) Sidewalk bicycle proof test. (Ref. §§ 1512.15(c) and 1512.17(b)):<br />
(1) Procedure. The bicycle shall be loaded with weights of 13.6 kg (30 lb.) on the seat surface and 4.5 kg (10 lb.) attached to the end of each handle grip for a total load of 22.7 kg (50 lb.). The bicycle shall be lifted a distance of 0.3 m (1.0 ft.) and dropped (while maintaining an upright position) three times onto a paved surface. Following this and with weight removed, it shall be allowed to fall in any configuration and attitude from an upright position to the paved surface three times on each side.<br />
(r) Abrasion test for retroreflective rims. (Ref. § 1512.16(i)):<br />
(1) This test consists of a steel wire cup brush rotating at a constant velocity of 60 rpm that is applied at a force of 2 N (0.45 lbf) to the retroreflective material on one side of a bicycle wheel rim. The rim is rotated about the axle at a linear velocity of 0.23 m/sec (9 in./sec). The test is complete when the wheel has completed 1000 revolutions.<br />
(2) Apparatus. Figure 8 of this part 1512 illustrates the following test fixture arrangement that is suitable to perform this abrasion test:<br />
(i) Test fixture. The test fixture contains a clamp to hold the axle of a bicycle wheel so that the wheel can rotate freely about the axle. The axis of rotation is capable of being inclined from the vertical to bring that portion of the side of the wheel rim containing the retroreflective material into a horizontal plane as it passes beneath the abrading brush. A drive mechanism to rotate the bicycle wheel contains a means to adjust the rotational velocity to obtain the specified linear velocity measured at a point on the wheel rim on the axis of the abrading brush.<br />
(ii) Abrader. The abrader is a cup brush meeting the specification in paragraph (r)(3)(v) of this section. It is mounted in a chuck attached to a motor that rotates about a vertical axis at the specified rotational velocity. A means is provided to apply the rotating cup brush at the specified force against the retroreflective material on the bicycle wheel rim. The axis of the abrading brush is positioned on the mid point in the width of the retroreflective material. The force is produced by deadweights applied to a pan on the axis of the counterbalanced motor/brush assembly.<br />
(3) Specifications. (i) The linear velocity of the reflective band on wheel rim shall be 0.23 m/sec (9 in./sec) measured at a point on the axis of the abrading brush.<br />
(ii) The rotational velocity of the abrading brush shall be 60 rpm.<br />
(iii) The force normal to the plane of the retroreflective material at which the abrading brush is to be applied shall be 2 N (0.45 lbf).<br />
(iv) The bicycle wheel shall make 1000 complete revolutions per test.<br />
(v) The abrader shall be a cup brush having bristles that are 0.005 in. (approx. 0.13mm) diameter low carbon steel wire; an outside diameter of 0.5 inch (aprox. .13mm); a wire bristle length of 0.25 inch (approx. 6.4mm); and a cup diameter of 0.405 inch (approx. 10.29mm). 6<br />
Footnote(s):<br />
6 For compliance testing the Commission will use a brush meeting this description distributed by Dremel Manufacturing Company, Racine, Wisconsin as Dremel Part No. 442. This brush is manufactured by Weiler Brush Company as No. 26074, MC-10 Wire.<br />
(vi) The abrasion test shall be conducted at an ambient temperature of between 16 °C (60 °F) and 27 °C (80 °F).<br />
(4) Procedure. (i) The retroreflective bicycle rim to be tested shall be an unused sample free from grit, grime and grease. Prior to beginning the test, remove, according to instructions supplied with the bicycle, any protective coating or material used to prevent damage in shipping.<br />
(ii) Test the wheel in a suitable test fixture, according to the specifications in paragraph (r)(3) of this section.<br />
(iii) Clamp the wheel by its axle in the test fixture and align the axis of rotation so that the portion of the reflective material below the axis of the abrading brush is horizontal.<br />
(iv) Shape the cup brush by hand to the specified 0.5 (approx. 13mm) diameter. Any stray wire bristles projecting more than 1/32 in. (approx. 1 mm) beyond the tip of the bulk of the bristles should be clipped off. Adjust the position of the brush so that its axis is centered over the mid-point in the width of the retroreflective material.<br />
(v) Adjust the rotational velocity of the bicycle wheel to obtain a linear velocity of 0.23 m/sec (9 in./sec) measured at the mid-point in the width of the retroreflective material. Adjust the force to obtain a force normal to the surface under the brush of 2 N (0.45 lbf).<br />
(vi) Apply the abrading brush to the retroreflective material on the wheel rim, and continue the test for 1000 complete revolutions of the bicycle wheel.<br />
[43 FR 60034, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 45 FR 82628, Dec. 16, 1980; 46 FR 3204, Jan. 14, 1981; 68 FR 52691, Sept. 5, 2003; 76 FR 27888, May 13, 2011]<br />
<br />
§ 1512.19 Instructions and labeling.<br />
A bicycle shall have an instruction manual attached to its frame or included with the packaged unit.<br />
(a) The instruction manual shall include at least the following:<br />
(1) Operations and safety instructions describing operation of the brakes and gears, cautions concerning wet weather and night-time operation, and a guide for safe on-and-off road operation.<br />
(2) Assembly instructions for accomplishing complete and proper assembly.<br />
(3) Maintenance instructions for proper maintenance of brakes, control cables, bearing adjustments, wheel adjustments, lubrication, reflectors, tires and handlebar and seat adjustments; should the manufacturer determine that such maintenance is beyond the capability of the consumer, specifics regarding locations where such maintenance service can be obtained shall be included.<br />
(b) A bicycle less than fully assembled and fully adjusted shall have clearly displayed on any promotional display material and on the outside surface of the shipping carton the following: (1) A list of tools necessary to properly accomplish assembly and adjustment, (2) a drawing illustrating the minimum leg-length dimension of a rider and a method of measurement of this dimension.<br />
(c) The minimum leg-length dimension shall be readily understandable and shall be based on allowing no less than one inch of clearance between (1) the top tube of the bicycle and the ground plane and (2) the crotch measurement of the rider. A girl's style frame shall be specified in the same way using a corresponding boys' model as a basis.<br />
(d) [Reserved]<br />
(e) Every bicycle subject to the requirements of this part 1512 shall bear a marking or label that is securely affixed on or to the frame of the bicycle in such a manner that the marking or label cannot be removed without being defaced or destroyed. The marking or label shall identify the name of the manufacturer or private labeler and shall also bear some form of marking from which the manufacturer can identify the month and year of manufacture or from which the private labeler can identify the manufacturer and the month and year of manufacture. For purposes of this paragraph, the term manufacture means the completion by the manufacturer of a bicycle of those construction or assembly operations that are performed by the manufacturer before the bicycle is shipped from the manufacturer's place of production for sale to distributors, retailers, or consumers.<br />
[43 FR 60034, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 60 FR 62990, Dec. 8, 1995]<br />
<br />
§ 1512.20 Separability.<br />
If any section or portion thereof of this part 1512 or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the section(s) and its (their) application to other persons or circumstances is not thereby affected.<br />
Subpart B—Policies and Interpretations [Reserved]<br />
Pt. 1512, Fig. 1<br />
Figure 1 to Part 1512—Bicycle Front Fork Cantilever Bending Test Rig<br />
[Please see PDF for image: EC03OC91.070]<br />
Pt. 1512, Figs. 2 and 3<br />
Figures 2 and 3 to Part 1512—Handlebar Stem Loading and Entrance 8 Observation Angles<br />
[Please see PDF for image: EC03OC91.071]<br />
Pt. 1512, Fig. 5<br />
Figure 5 to Part 1512—Typical Handbrake Actuator Showing Grip Dimension<br />
[Please see PDF for image: EC03OC91.072]<br />
Pt. 1512, Figs. 6 and 7<br />
Figures 6 and 7 to Part 1512—Toe Clearance and Chain Guard Requirements<br />
[Please see PDF for image: EC03OC91.073]<br />
Pt. 1512, Fig. 8<br />
Figure 8 to Part 1512—Reflectorized Bicycle Wheel Rim Abrasion Test Device<br />
[Please see PDF for image: EC03OC91.074]<br />
Pt. 1512, Table 1<br />
Table 1 to Part 1512—Minimum Candlepower per Incident Foot-Candle for Clear Reflector 1<br />
Observation angle Front, rear, and side reflectors; entrance angle in degrees Pedal reflectors; entrance angle in degrees<br />
0 10 up/down 20 left/right 0 10 up/down 20 left/right<br />
0.2 27.0 18.0 9.0 7.5 6.0 3.0<br />
0.3 6.0 4.8 2.4<br />
1.5 .28 .20 .12 .28 .20 .12<br />
1 Amber values shall be 5/8 × clear values. Red values shall be 1/4 clear values.<br />
Pt. 1512, Table 2<br />
Table 2 to Part 1512—Minimum Candlepower per Incident Foot-Candle for Clear Reflector 1<br />
Observation angle Front, rear, and side reflectors; entrance angle in degrees<br />
30 left/right 40 left/right 50 left/right<br />
0.2 8.0 7.0 6.0<br />
1.5 .12 .12 .12<br />
1 Amber values shall be 5/8 × clear values. Red values shall be 1/4 × clear values.<br />
Pt. 1512, Table 3<br />
Table 3 to Part 1512—Minimum Acceptable Values for the Quantity A Defined in the Retroreflective Tire and Rim Test Procedure<br />
Observation angle (degrees) Entrance angle (degrees) Minimum acceptable value of A<br />
Meters Feet<br />
0.2 −4 2.2 7.25<br />
.2 20 1.9 6.27<br />
.2 40 1.3 4.29<br />
1.5 −4 .22 .73<br />
1.5 20 .19 .63<br />
1.5 40 .13 .43[43 FR 60034, Dec. 22, 1978, as amended at 45 FR 82631, Dec. 16, 1980; 46 FR 3204, Jan. 14, 1981]<br />
Pt. 1512, Table 4<br />
Table 4 to Part 1512—Relative Energy Distribution of Sources<br />
Wave length (nanometers) Relative energy<br />
380 9.79<br />
390 12.09<br />
400 14.71<br />
410 17.68<br />
420 21.00<br />
430 24.67<br />
440 28.70<br />
450 33.09<br />
460 37.82<br />
470 42.87<br />
480 48.25<br />
490 53.91<br />
500 59.86<br />
510 66.06<br />
520 72.50<br />
530 79.13<br />
540 85.95<br />
550 92.91<br />
560 100.00<br />
570 107.18<br />
580 114.44<br />
590 121.73<br />
600 129.04<br />
610 136.34<br />
620 143.62<br />
630 150.83<br />
640 157.98<br />
650 165.03<br />
660 171.96<br />
670 178.77<br />
680 185.43<br />
690 191.93<br />
700 198.26<br />
710 204.41<br />
720 210.36<br />
730 216.12<br />
740 221.66<br />
750 227.00<br />
760 232.11<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228 © Copyright 1996-2020 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-92119483120837672632020-05-03T10:49:00.000-07:002020-05-03T10:49:35.855-07:00Opinion: Issue Of Ebikes On Federal Lands Far From Over [reprinted with permission from cyclevolta.com 4-20]<div>
<div class="">
[reprinted with permission from www.cyclevolta.com April 2020; direct link to original article <a href="https://www.cyclevolta.com/story/emobility-news/issue-of-ebikes-on-federal-lands-far-from-over/" target="_blank">here</a>]</div>
<div class="">
<br />
<div class="article_subtitle">
Current rulemaking to raise more questions around access, attorney says.</div>
<div class="article_subtitle">
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
<span class="article_byline | align_items_center--mobile container_column container_row--desktop flex italic justify_center padding_bottom_sm--mobile text_align_center align_items_center"></span><br />
<div class="by_author">
<span class="article_byline | align_items_center--mobile container_column container_row--desktop flex italic justify_center padding_bottom_sm--mobile text_align_center align_items_center"><span class="italic margin_right_sm">Steven W. Hansen Esq.</span></span></div>
<span class="article_byline | align_items_center--mobile container_column container_row--desktop flex italic justify_center padding_bottom_sm--mobile text_align_center align_items_center">
</span><br />
<span class="article_image_credit color_gray italic margin_right_xs
"></span><br />
<div class="margin_vertical">
<br />
<section class="content"><div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
<i>Editor’s note: </i><a href="https://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/profile-of-steven-w-hansen.html" target="_blank"><i>Steven W. Hansen</i></a><i>
is an attorney who represents product manufacturers, distributors, and
retailers in product liability and other lawsuits and provides
consultation on all matters related to the manufacture and distribution
of ebikes and other consumer products. For further questions, visit </i><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank"><i>swhlaw.com</i></a><i> or send an email to </i><a href="mailto:legal.inquiry@swhlaw.com" target="_blank"><i>legal.inquiry@swhlaw.com</i></a><i>.</i></div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
<br /></div>
</div>
</section></div>
<div class="margin_vertical">
<br />
<section class="content"><div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
As
some of you may recall, back in 2003 the Consumer Product Safety
Commission decided to regulate ebikes in much the same as they did
“non-powered” bicycles by adding a provision to federal law defining a
bicycle as “a two- or three-wheeled vehicle with fully operable pedals
and an electric motor of less than 750 watts (1 horsepower), whose
maximum speed on a paved level surface, when powered solely by such a
motor while ridden by an operator who weighs 170 pounds, is less than 20
mph.” Now fast-forward to early 2015. At that point the then-titled
Bicycle Products Suppliers Association—now merged with
PeopleForBikes—decided to expand on the CPSC law and create three
“classes” of ebikes, implicitly understanding that one day at least one
or more classes would also be used off road.</div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
<br /></div>
</div>
</section></div>
<div class="margin_vertical">
<br />
<section class="content"><div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
The initial push with <a href="https://www.cyclevolta.com/what-are-classes-e-bikes-where-can-e-bikes-be-ridden/">the three ebike classes</a>
was into large states like California, which adopted the framework in
the fall of 2015. The idea was to start with a few key states and then
see if all state legislatures would adopt the three-class structure. At
that point the three classes could be relied upon by manufacturers
nationwide.</div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
<br /></div>
</div>
</section></div>
<div class="margin_vertical">
<br />
<section class="content"><div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
<b>Related: </b><a href="https://www.cyclevolta.com/story/ebike-basics/where-can-i-ride-my-ebike-on-department-of-interior-lands/"><b>Where Can I Ride My Ebike On Department Of Interior Lands?</b></a></div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
<br /></div>
</div>
</section></div>
<div class="margin_vertical">
<br />
<section class="content"><div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
But
off-road use was a little less clear. The California state law (AB
1096), for example, specifically excluded Class 3 ebikes from being used
on off-road “trails” (on state land) but did allow Class 1 and 2 to be
used off road unless the “local authority or governing body of a public
agency” decided to prohibit them “by ordinance.” This is still a very
murky area of the state law. But even if we assume that the California
state law applies to all “off-road trails” at state parks (public land)
and county and city parks, it still does not apply to federal land of
any type or land owned by nongovernmental entities (private property).</div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
<br /></div>
</div>
</section></div>
<div class="margin_vertical">
<br />
<section class="content"><div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
Now
fast-forward again to August 2019. More than 20 states had adopted some
form of the BPSA model legislation. The US Secretary of the Interior
signed an order directing the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park
Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Reclamation to
develop proposed rules to revise their own regulations to be consistent
with the three classes of ebikes defined in the order. The “appropriate
public guidance regarding the use of ebikes on public lands” was to be
issued within 30 days.</div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
<br /></div>
</div>
</section></div>
<div class="margin_vertical">
<br />
<section class="content"><div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
In
September 2019 the NPS did issue a four-page “policy memorandum” on the
regulation of ebikes, outlining the three classes, prohibiting anything
outside of those three classes, and also disallowing the use of ebikes
where the motor was being used exclusively (like Class 2 bikes allow) or
of course anything beyond the CPSC regulations. The memo encouraged
park superintendents to not make park regulations more restrictive than
the state’s laws where the national park was located—pointing out that
many states had already adopted the three-class approach. Some 380 parks
(out of a total of 419) within the national park system have already
implemented their ebike policy as of today.</div>
</div>
</section></div>
<div class="margin_vertical">
<br />
<section class="content"><div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
Now
the four agencies above have posted their proposed official regulations
(in the Code of Federal Regulations) to take the place of the
“memorandums” put in place informally in late 2019. To read more detail
on each as well as links for directly commenting on each regulation use
the following links: <a href="https://www.swhlaw.com/2020/04/national-park-service-sets-forth-their.html" target="_blank">NPS</a>, <a href="https://www.swhlaw.com/2020/04/bureau-of-land-management-blm-is-now.html" target="_blank">BLM</a>, <a href="https://www.swhlaw.com/2020/04/us-fish-and-wildlife-service-seeks.html" target="_blank">FWS</a>, <a href="https://www.swhlaw.com/2020/04/the-us-bureau-of-reclamation-is-now.html" target="_blank">BOR</a>.</div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
<br /></div>
</div>
</section></div>
<div class="margin_vertical">
<br />
<section class="content"><div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
Much
of this access being outlined is academic right now due to the COVID-19
pandemic, but the comment period for these proposed CFR rules is <a href="https://www.cyclevolta.com/story/emobility-news/support-proposed-federal-ebike-regulations/">open now and expires in early June</a>.
What is not known is if this comment period will be extended or if,
after the first comment period, the proposed rules are revised again and
rereleased for comment. Also, it is not known at this time how many
comments there will be, from who or what groups, and how long it will
take for the government to review them and make changes, if any, to
those proposed. If history is a guide, I would not expect significant
changes to what has been “proposed” unless groups opposed to ebikes take
control of the narrative or the <a href="https://goodheartsolutions.com/2019/10/18/emtb-thoughts/" target="_blank">750-watt limit itself is challenged.</a></div>
</div>
</section></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div class="padding_vertical embed" style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<section class="content"><div class="article_block_quote margin_centered">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span class="quote_wrapper | container_column flex"></span></span><br />
<h2 class="quote">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span class="quote_wrapper | container_column flex">
Much
the same way we have local access issues and unanswered questions
arising from the California state law, we will have local federal access
issues under federal law. Park superintendents overseeing specific
parks and national forest areas will have to deal with specific issues
with Class 1, 2, and 3 bikes as they arise.</span></span></h2>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span class="quote_wrapper | container_column flex">
</span></span></div>
</section></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="margin_vertical">
<br />
<section class="content"><div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
Focusing
again just on the NPS proposal, the three classes of bikes are
explicitly adopted and ebikes would be allowed on administrative roads
and trails where bicycles are allowed without the need to undertake
further action. But the proposed rules would also give park
superintendents the authority to limit or restrict ebike use after
taking into consideration public health and safety, natural and cultural
resource protection, and other management activities and objectives and
then manage ebikes, or particular classes of ebikes, differently than
traditional bicycles in particular locations. Every restriction or
closure that limits the use of ebikes would have to be supported by a
written record explaining the basis for such action.</div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
<br /></div>
</div>
</section></div>
<div class="margin_vertical">
<br />
<section class="content"><div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
The
proposed rule seeks to restrict Class 2 ebikes to park roads or places
motor vehicles can travel. It seeks comment on the workability of this
restriction or suggests park superintendents deal with this in a
location-by-location fashion.</div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
<br /></div>
</div>
</section></div>
<div class="margin_vertical">
<br />
<section class="content"><div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
Again
the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the
Bureau of Reclamation—the last of which primarily oversees federal dams
and reservoirs west of the Mississippi River—have proposed similar
regulations with some variations.</div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
<br /></div>
</div>
</section></div>
<div class="margin_vertical">
<br />
<section class="content"><div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
Much
the same way we have local access issues and unanswered questions
arising from the California state law, we will have local federal access
issues under federal law. Park superintendents overseeing specific
parks and national forest areas will have to deal with specific issues
with Class 1, 2, and 3 bikes as they arise. So this is long from over.
We also still have a small population of ebikes and users who don’t
comply with the three classes. Additionally, there is lots of non-public
land and a huge gap that will need to be filled to create correct
signage for all these thousands of trails and spaces and effectively
policing them so that renegade users/ebikes do not ruin access for the
law-abiding users.</div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
<br /></div>
</div>
</section></div>
<div class="margin_vertical">
<br />
<section class="content"><div>
<div class="paragraph | margin_bottom_lg margin_centered">
<i>The
information in this column is subject to change and may not be
applicable in your state or country. It is intended as a
thought-provoking discussion of general legal principles and does not
constitute legal advice. Any opinions expressed herein are solely those
of the author.</i></div>
</div>
</section></div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2020 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-34979773805924147062020-04-17T14:50:00.000-07:002020-04-17T14:50:23.398-07:00The US Bureau of Reclamation is now the fourth and final federal agency to publish its plans for e bike use
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Again the Fish and Wildlife Service (<a href="https://www.swhlaw.com/2020/04/us-fish-and-wildlife-service-seeks.html" target="_blank">FWS</a>; link to article) and Bureau of Land
Management (<a href="https://www.swhlaw.com/2020/04/bureau-of-land-management-blm-is-now.html" target="_blank">BLM</a>; link to article) and the National Park Service (<a href="https://www.swhlaw.com/2020/04/national-park-service-sets-forth-their.html" target="_blank">NPS</a>; link to article) have within the last few days published their proposed rules regarding e bikes. Now the Bureau of Reclamation (which primary oversees federal
dams and reservoirs west of the Mississippi River)
have proposed similar regulations with some slight variations. Dept of the Interior Secretarial Order 3376 addresses regulatory uncertainty on how agencies
within the Department of the Interior manage recreational opportunities
for electric bikes (E-bikes) on trails and paths where traditional bikes
are allowed. To provide consistency in Federal policy among agencies
with recreational opportunities pertinent to Secretarial Order 3376, the
BOR is proposing to amend this
regulation to add a definition for E-bikes and exempt E-bikes from the
regulatory definition of an off-road vehicle where E-bikes are being
used on roads and trails where mechanized, non-motorized use is allowed,
they are not being propelled exclusively by a motorized source, and the
appropriate regional director expressly determines through a formal
decision that E-bikes should be treated the same as non-motorized
bicycles. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To <b>comment on the proposed regulations before June 12, 2020</b> please visit this <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=BOR_FRDOC_0001-0011" target="_blank">direct link</a>. </div>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Author>Steven W. Hansen</o:Author>
<o:Version>11.9999</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:RelyOnVML/>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><img src="https://img1.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" />
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]--><br />
<br />
the proposed regulation are reprinted below:<br />
<br />
List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 420<br />E-bikes, Recreation.<br />
<br />For the reasons stated in the preamble, Reclamation proposes to amend part 420 of title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:<br />
<br />Part 420 Off Road Vehicle Use<br />1. The authority citation for part 420 continues to read as follows:<br />Authority<br />32 Stat. 388 (43 U.S.C. 391 et seq.) and act amendatory thereof and supplementary thereto; E.O. 11644 (37 FR 2877).<br />2. Amend § 420.5 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (h) to read as follows:<br />
<br />§ 420.5<br />Definitions.<br />* * * * *<br />(a) Off-road vehicle means any motorized vehicle (including the standard automobile) designed for or capable of cross-country travel on or immediately over land, water, sand, snow, ice, marsh, swampland, or natural terrain. The term excludes:<br />(1) Nonamphibious registered motorboats;<br />(2) Military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicles when used for emergency purpose;<br />(3) Self-propelled lawnmowers, snowblowers, garden or lawn tractors, and golf carts while being used for their designed purpose;<br />(4) Agricultural, timbering, construction, exploratory, and development equipment and vehicles while being used exclusively as authorized by permit, lease, license, agreement, or contract with the Bureau;<br />(5) Any combat or combat support vehicle when used in times of national defense emergencies;<br />(6) “Official use” vehicles; and<br />(7) Electric bikes as defined by § 420.5(h), except those being used in a manner where the motor is being used exclusively to propel the E-bike.<br />* * * * *<br />(h) Electric Bicycle (also known as an E-bike) shall mean a two- or three-wheeled cycle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of not more than 750 watts (1 h.p.) that meets the requirements of one of the following three classes:<br />(1) Class 1 electric bicycle shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.<br />(2) Class 2 electric bicycle shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.<br />(3) Class 3 electric bicycle shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour.<br />
<br />Subpart B Designated Areas and Permitted Events<br />
<br />3. Amend § 420.21 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:<br />
<br />§ 420.21<br />Procedure for designating areas for off-road vehicle use.<br />* * * * *<br />(d) The appropriate regional director should generally allow E-bikes whose mechanical features are being used as an assist to human propulsion on roads and trails upon which mechanized, non-motorized use is allowed, in compliance with the requirements of this section, unless the authorized officer determines that E-bike use would be inappropriate on such roads and trails. If the appropriate regional director allows E-bikes in accordance with this paragraph, an E-bike user shall be afforded the rights and privileges, and be subject to all the duties, of non-motorized bicycles.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2020 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-84207396976923780852020-04-09T12:40:00.000-07:002020-05-03T15:01:46.628-07:00Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is now the third federal agency in three days to publish its plans for e bike useI don't know if this was intentional or not but three federal agencies on three separate days (back to back) have all published their proposed rules for e bikes in/on their respective lands or parks. The rules are all very similar in that they all make explicit reference to the three classes of ebikes similar to what most states have proscribed however their are slight variations in all three agencies approaches due to where the agencies are at now with e bike regulation and how usage might differ in each of the three different types of federal lands or parks.Once again all the usual suspects are <a href="https://americanhiking.org/press-release/national-trail-and-conservation-groups-blast-new-doi-e-bike-order/" target="_blank">coming out against</a> all these regulations. The latest announcement on class 1 ebikes being banned on NFS land was just spotted by one of our readers <a href="https://www.singletracks.com/mtb-news/e-mtbs-are-not-allowed-on-non-motorized-trails-in-tahoe-natl-forest-again/?fbclid=IwAR1f5WsFjA6pTtHpy-r8D6m7ptD5-pGZsfe5SmINT9Jvndg8WGn0au-jZCo" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) likely oversees the largest acreage of land (see fn 1 below) upon which ebikes can/may be used and often this land is managed differently than the National Parks for obvious reasons. So as a result the proposal from BLM is a bit longer than the other two agencies proposals (<a href="https://www.swhlaw.com/2020/04/national-park-service-sets-forth-their.html" target="_blank">NPS</a> and <a href="https://www.swhlaw.com/2020/04/us-fish-and-wildlife-service-seeks.html" target="_blank">FWS</a>). If you would like to read the entire 25 page BLM proposal (quite a detailed history) it is linked <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/17fcb2NeUStab_djj8F7fqDGGKuBz22x1/view?usp=sharing" target="_blank">here</a>. The proposed rules themselves are set forth below. <b>Public commenting period will run from April 10, 2020 to June 10, 2020. </b>The direct commenting link is <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=BLM-2020-0001" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
(footnote 1: <span class="ILfuVd NA6bn"><span class="e24Kjd">The BLM administers more surface land (245 million acres or one-tenth of America's land base) and more subsurface mineral estate (700 million acres) than any other government agency in the United States.</span></span>) <br />
<br />
List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 8340<br />
Public lands, Recreation and recreation areas, Traffic regulations.<br />
43 CFR Chapter II<br />
<br />
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Bureau of Land Management proposes to<br />
amend 43 CFR part 8340 as follows:<br />
<br />
PART 8340—OFF-ROAD VEHICLES<br />
1. The authority citation for part 8340 continues to read as follows:<br />
<br />
Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1201, 43 U.S.C. 315a, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 1281c, 16<br />
U.S.C. 670 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 460l-6a, 16 U.S.C. 1241 et seq., and 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.<br />
<br />
Subpart 8340—General<br />
2. Revise §8340.0-5 to read as follows:<br />
§8340.0-5 Definitions.<br />
As used in this part:<br />
<br />
(a) Off-road vehicle means any motorized vehicle capable of, or designed for, travel on or<br />
immediately over land, water, or other natural terrain, excluding:<br />
(1) Any nonamphibious registered motorboat;<br />
(2) Any military, fire, emergency, or law enforcement vehicle while being used for<br />
emergency purposes;<br />
(3) Any vehicle whose use is expressly authorized by the authorized officer, or otherwise<br />
officially approved;<br />
(4) Vehicles in official use;<br />
(5) E-bikes, as defined in paragraph (j) of this section:<br />
(i) While being used on roads and trails upon which mechanized, non-motorized use is<br />
allowed;<br />
(ii) That are not being used in a manner where the motor is being used exclusively to<br />
propel the E-bike; and<br />
(iii) Where the authorized officer has expressly determined, as part of a land-use<br />
planning or implementation-level decision, that E-bikes should be treated the same as<br />
non-motorized bicycles; and<br />
(6) Any combat or combat support vehicle when used in times of national defense<br />
emergencies.<br />
(b) Public lands means any lands the surface of which is administered by the Bureau of<br />
Land Management.<br />
(c) Bureau means the Bureau of Land Management.<br />
(d) Official use means use by an employee, agent, or designated representative of the<br />
Federal Government or one of its contractors, in the course of his employment, agency,<br />
or representation.<br />
(e) Planning system means the approach provided in Bureau regulations, directives and<br />
manuals to formulate multiple use plans for the public lands. This approach provides for<br />
public participation within the system.<br />
(f) Open area means an area where all types of vehicle use is permitted at all times,<br />
anywhere in the area subject to the operating regulations and vehicle standards set forth<br />
in subparts 8341 and 8342 of this title.<br />
(g) Limited area means an area restricted at certain times, in certain areas, and/or to<br />
certain vehicular use. These restrictions may be of any type, but can generally be<br />
accommodated within the following type of categories: Numbers of vehicles; types of<br />
vehicles; time or season of vehicle use; permitted or licensed use only; use on existing<br />
roads and trails; use on designated roads and trails; and other restrictions.<br />
(h) Closed area means an area where off-road vehicle use is prohibited. Use of off-road<br />
vehicles in closed areas may be allowed for certain reasons; however, such use shall be<br />
made only with the approval of the authorized officer.<br />
(i) Spark arrester is any device which traps or destroys 80 percent or more of the exhaust<br />
particles to which it is subjected.<br />
(j) Electric bicycle (also known as an E-bike) means a two- or three-wheeled cycle with<br />
fully operable pedals and an electric motor of not more than 750 watts (1 h.p.) that meets<br />
the requirements of one of the following three classes:<br />
(1) Class 1 electric bicycle shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that<br />
provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance<br />
when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.<br />
(2) Class 2 electric bicycle shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that may<br />
be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance<br />
when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.<br />
(3) Class 3 electric bicycle shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that<br />
provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance<br />
when the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour.<br />
<br />
Subpart 8342—Designation of Areas and Trails<br />
3. Amend §8342.2 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:<br />
<br />
§8342.2 Designation procedures.<br />
*****<br />
(d) E-bikes.<br />
(1) Authorized officers should generally allow, as part of a land-use<br />
planning or implementation-level decision, E-bikes whose motorized features are being<br />
used to assist human propulsion on roads and trails upon which mechanized, nonmotorized<br />
use is allowed, unless the authorized officer determines that E-bike use would<br />
be inappropriate on such roads or trails; and<br />
(2) If the authorized officer allows E-bikes in accordance with this paragraph (d), an Ebike<br />
user shall be afforded all the rights and privileges, and be subject to all of the duties,<br />
of user of a non-motorized bicycle.<br />
<br />
[FR Doc. 2020-07099 Filed: 4/9/2020 8:45 am; Publication Date: 4/10/2020]<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2020 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-42085206518975373612020-04-07T12:28:00.001-07:002020-04-08T09:59:55.092-07:00National Park Service sets forth their proposed e bike rulesThe National Park Service (on the day after the National Wildlife Refuge System proposed somewhat similar and less complex rules; see that story <a href="https://www.swhlaw.com/2020/04/us-fish-and-wildlife-service-seeks.html" target="_blank">here</a>) has now set forth their own proposed e bike rules below. The comment period on the proposed rules (set forth in full at the bottom of this article) will run from <b>April 8 2020 to June 8 2020</b>. Comments can be made directly <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NPS-2020-0001" target="_blank">here</a>. Clearly some groups <a href="https://www.adventure-journal.com/2019/08/e-bikes-on-public-lands-not-so-fast-say-these-conservancy-groups/" target="_blank">are not going to be happy</a> about ebikes in the NPS parks. Some industry insiders <a href="https://www.bicycleretailer.com/industry-news/2020/02/04/industry-didnt-prepare-emtbs-former-trek-exec-said" target="_blank">agree</a>. More opinions <a href="https://www.bicycleretailer.com/opinion-analysis/2020/02/19/guest-opinion-20-mph-assist-too-fast-e-bikes" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="https://www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2019/08/dozens-conservation-groups-oppose-ebikes-non-motorized-trails" target="_blank">here.</a><br />
<br />
On August 29, 2019, Secretary of the Interior Bernhardt signed <a href="https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3376_-_increasing_recreational_opportunities_through_the_use_of_electric_bikes_-508_0.pdf" target="_blank">Secretary’s Order 3376</a>, “Increasing Recreational Opportunities through the use of Electric Bikes.” The Order acknowledges there is regulatory uncertainty regarding whether e-bikes should be managed similar to other types of bicycles, or, alternatively, considered motor vehicles. The Order states that this regulatory uncertainty has led to inconsistent management of e-bikes across the Department and, in some cases, served to decrease access to Federally owned lands by users of e-bikes. In order to address these concerns, the Order directs the NPS and other Department of the Interior agencies to define e-bikes separately from motor vehicles and to allow them where other types of bicycles are allowed.<br />
<br />
On August 30, 2019, the Deputy Director of the NPS, Exercising the Authority of the Director, issued <a href="https://www.nps.gov/subjects/policy/upload/PM_19-01.pdf" target="_blank">Policy Memorandum 19-01, Electric Bicycles</a>, which refers to a three-class system that limits the maximum assisted speed of an e-bike. The Memorandum requires superintendents to adopt state law in the same manner for e-bikes. The rule would amend 36 CFR 1.4 to add a new definition of “electric bicycle” that is the same as the definition used in the Policy Memorandum, with one minor difference, namely that the definition of e-bikes in the proposed rule would include devices of not more than 750 watts.<br />
<br />
The rule would also state that superintendents will designate the areas open to e-bikes and notify the public pursuant to 36 CFR 1.7. E-bikes would not be allowed in other locations. The rule would also give superintendents the authority to limit or restrict e-bike use after taking into consideration public health and safety, natural and cultural resource protection, and other management activities and objectives. If warranted by these criteria, superintendents may use this authority to manage e-bikes, or particular classes of e-bikes, differently than traditional bicycles in particular locations. <b>For example, a superintendent could determine that a trail open to traditional bicycles should not be open to e-bikes, or should be open to class 1 e-bikes only. Every restriction or closure that limits the use of e-bikes will be supported by a written record explaining the basis for such action.</b><br />
<br />
Except on park roads and other locations where the use of motor vehicles by the public is allowed, <b>the rule would prohibit an operator from using the electric motor to move an e-bike without pedaling. </b>This restriction is consistent with the Policy Memorandum and intended to allow the public to use e-bikes for transportation and recreation in a similar manner to traditional bicycles. It would only affect the use of class 2 e-bikes, which have a motor that may be used exclusively to propel the e-bike. The NPS specifically requests comment on whether this restriction is appropriate or workable. Alternatively, the NPS could allow superintendents to implement this restriction at the park level if necessary in specific locations.<br />
<br />
36 CFR Part 4<br />
National Parks, Traffic Regulations.<br />
<br />
In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service proposes to amend 36 CFR parts 1 and 4 as set forth below:<br />
<br />
PART 1—GENERAL PROVISIONS<br />
<br />
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:<br />
Authority: 54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102<br />
<br />
2. Amend § 1.4 by adding, in alphabetical order, a definition for “Electric bicycle” and<br />
revising the definition for “Motor vehicle” to read as follows:<br />
<br />
§ 1.4 What terms do I need to know?<br />
(a) * * *<br />
* * * * *<br />
Electric bicycle means a two- or three-wheeled cycle with fully operable pedals and an<br />
electric motor of not more than 750 watts that meets the requirements of one of the following<br />
three classes:<br />
(1) "Class 1 electric bicycle" shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that<br />
provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when<br />
the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.<br />
(2) "Class 2 electric bicycle" shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that<br />
may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance<br />
when the bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.<br />
(3) "Class 3 electric bicycle" shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that<br />
provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when<br />
the bicycle reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour.<br />
* * * * *<br />
Motor vehicle means every vehicle that is self-propelled and every vehicle that is propelled by electric power, but not operated on rails or water, except an electric bicycle, a<br />
snowmobile, and a motorized wheelchair.<br />
<br />
* * * * *<br />
PART 4— VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC SAFETY<br />
<br />
3. The authority citation for part 4 continues to read as follows:<br />
Authority: 54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102.<br />
<br />
4. Amend § 4.30 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:<br />
<br />
§ 4.30 Bicycles<br />
* * * * *<br />
(i) Electric bicycles.<br />
(1) The use of an electric bicycle may be allowed on park roads, parking areas, and<br />
administrative roads and trails that are otherwise open to bicycles. The Superintendent will<br />
designate the areas open to electric bicycles and notify the public pursuant to 36 CFR 1.7.<br />
(2) The use of an electric bicycle is prohibited in locations not designated by the<br />
Superintendent under paragraph (i)(1) of this section.<br />
(3) Except where use of motor vehicles by the public is allowed, <b>using the electric motor<br />to move an electric bicycle without pedaling is prohibited.</b><br />
(4) Possessing an electric bicycle in a wilderness area established by Federal statute is<br />
prohibited.<br />
(5) A person operating or possessing an electric bicycle is subject to the following<br />
sections of this part that apply to bicycles: sections 4.12, 4.13, 4.20, 4.21, 4.22, 4.23, and<br />
4.30(h)(3)-(5).<br />
(6) Except as specified in this section, the use of an electric bicycle is governed by State law, which is adopted and made a part of this section. Any act in violation of State law adopted<br />
by this paragraph is prohibited.<br />
(7) <b>Superintendents may limit or restrict or impose conditions on electric bicycle use,</b> or<br />
may close any park road, parking area, administrative road, trail, or portion thereof to such<br />
electric bicycle use, or terminate such condition, closure, limit or restriction after:<br />
(i) Taking into consideration public health and safety, natural and cultural resource<br />
protection, and other management activities and objectives; and<br />
(ii) Notifying the public through one or more methods listed in 36 CFR 1.7, including in<br />
the superintendent’s compendium (or written compilation) of discretionary actions referred to in<br />
section 1.7(b).<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2020 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-85395920888065639782020-04-06T11:41:00.000-07:002020-04-07T11:27:35.239-07:00U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service seeks public comments on use of e-bikes on the National Wildlife Refuge SystemThe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is seeking public comments on the use of e-bikes on the National Wildlife Refuge System. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act closes national wildlife refuges in all States except Alaska to all uses until opened. This proposed rule only pertains to the National Wildlife Refuge System (<a href="https://www.fws.gov/refuges/refugeLocatorMaps/" target="_blank">map</a>) and NOT to National Parks (<a href="https://www.nps.gov/carto/app/#!/parks" target="_blank">map</a>) nor general National Forrest service land (<a href="https://www.fs.fed.us/ivm/" target="_blank">map</a>). The Refuge System is a network of 568 national wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts. More than 59 million Americans visit refuges every year so the ebike companies may still be interested in this and it may affect decisions made on other federal land.<br />
<br />
Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary’s <a href="https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3376_-_increasing_recreational_opportunities_through_the_use_of_electric_bikes_-508_0.pdf" target="_blank">Order 3376</a> directs DOI bureaus to begin the process of obtaining public input on proposed new regulations that will clarify that operators of low-speed electric bicycles (e-bikes) should enjoy the same access as conventional bicycles, consistent with other Federal and State laws. Refuge managers will have the ability in the short term to utilize the flexibility they have under current regulations to accommodate this new technology, that assists riders as they pedal, in a way that allows them to enjoy the bicycling experience. DOI’s guidance will enable visitors to use these bicycles with a small electric motor (not more than 750 watts or 1 horsepower) power assist in the same manner as traditional bicycles. The operator of an e-bike may use the small electric motor only to assist pedal propulsion. The motor may not be used to propel an e-bike without the rider also pedaling.<br />
<br />
The comments on the proposed rule below can be made most effectively using the government's regulations.gov portal. The direct link to comment is <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FWS-HQ-NWRS-2019-0109-0001" target="_blank">here</a>. The comment period begins on or about <b>April 7 2020 and ends 60 days after on June 7, 2020. </b><br />
<br />
The proposed amendment is set forth below:<br />
<br />
<b>50 CFR Part 27 </b><br />
<br />
<b>Subpart C—Disturbing Violations: With Vehicles</b><br />
<br />
2. Amend § 27.31 by redesignating paragraph (m) as paragraph (n) and adding a new<br />
paragraph (m) to read as follows:<br />
<br />
<b>§ 27.31 General provisions regarding vehicles.</b><br />
<br />
(m) If the refuge manager determines that electric bicycle (also known as an e-bike) use<br />
is a compatible use on roads or trails, any person using the motorized features of an e-bike as an<br />
assist to human propulsion shall be afforded all the rights and privileges, and be subject to all of<br />
the duties, of the operators of non-motorized bicycles on roads and trails. An e-bike is a two- or<br />
three-wheeled electric bicycle with fully operable pedals and an electric motor of not more than<br />
750 watts (1 h.p.) that meets the requirements of one of the following three classes:<br />
<br />
(1) Class 1 e-bike shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that provides<br />
assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle<br />
reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.<br />
<br />
(2) Class 2 e-bike shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that may be<br />
used exclusively to propel the bicycle, and that is not capable of providing assistance when the<br />
bicycle reaches the speed of 20 miles per hour.<br />
<br />
(3) Class 3 e-bike shall mean an electric bicycle equipped with a motor that provides<br />
assistance only when the rider is pedaling, and that ceases to provide assistance when the bicycle<br />
reaches the speed of 28 miles per hour.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2020 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-91712624495360860102019-05-29T16:59:00.002-07:002019-06-13T11:52:25.253-07:00Hearings on round two of the 25% tariff increase set for June 17 2019<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">This appears to be round two of the 25% tariff increase. More categories of products are being included. The additional List 4 of goods valued at approximately $300 billion include but are not limited to livestock, foodstuffs, chemicals, plastics, garments, footwear, housewares, ceramics, glass, steel, iron, aluminum, tools, machinery, electronics, computers, toys, and exercise equipment. There are some bicycle related products in the list. If you wish to search for your harmonized tariff Schedule (HTS) subheading see<a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-05-17/pdf/2019-10191.pdf" target="_blank"> this pdf </a>starting on page 3. Form more information on the hearings see <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/17/2019-10191/request-for-comments-concerning-proposed-modification-of-action-pursuant-to-section-301-chinas-acts" target="_blank">this link.</a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";">In order to submit a written formal comment before June 17 2019 you can click the green button near the top of the page entitled "submit a formal comment" on <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/17/2019-10191/request-for-comments-concerning-proposed-modification-of-action-pursuant-to-section-301-chinas-acts" target="_blank">this page</a></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RrDSHOq1E61qPqpTJmNdvWzgkbmSTDXF" target="_blank">This is a list of bicycle products affected</a> by this current proposed Tariff as attached in the request to testify by Matt More on behalf of QBP and BPSA regarding this current round of proposed Tariffs (Docket No. USTR-2019-0004)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";">There are now over <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docketBrowser?rpp=25&so=DESC&sb=postedDate&po=0&D=USTR-2019-0004" target="_blank">1200 letters officially on file</a> (as of June 13 2019) with the USTR voicing opposition to the tariffs </span><br />
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">SUMMARY:<br />In accordance with the direction of the President, the U.S. Trade Representative (Trade Representative) proposes a modification of the action being taken in this Section 301 investigation of the acts, policies, and practices of the Government of China related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. The proposed modification is to take further action in the form of an additional ad valorem duty of up to 25 percent on products of China with an annual trade value of approximately $300 billion. The products subject to this proposed modification are classified in the HTSUS subheadings set out in the Annex to this notice. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is seeking public comment and will hold a public hearing regarding this proposed modification.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br />DATES:<br />To be assured of consideration, you must submit comments and responses in accordance with the following schedule:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br />June 10, 2019: Due date for filing requests to appear and a summary of expected testimony at the public hearing.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br />June 17, 2019: Due date for submission of written comments.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><br />June 17, 2019: The Section 301 Committee will convene a public hearing in the main hearing room of the U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, that begins at 9:30 a.m.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">The earlier batch of products hit with the 25% tariff on May 10, 2019 are at <a href="https://www.swhlaw.com/2019/05/official-list-of-goods-and-items.html" target="_blank">this link </a></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2013 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-68221013241357437002019-05-10T11:00:00.000-07:002019-05-10T17:32:05.376-07:00Official list of goods and items affected by Tariff increase on May 10 2019 (part of China trade war)<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">For those of you that have been looking this is the complete 194 page list of all items that will be affected by the 25% tariff that was announced to take effect on May 10, 2019. </span><span style="font-family: "arial";"><span style="font-family: "arial";"><a href="https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Tariff%20List%20%2883%20FR%2047974%2C%20as%20amended%20and%20modified%20by%2083%20FR%2049153%29.pdf" target="_blank">(Tariff List 83 FR 47974 as amended and modified by 83 FR 49153)</a> </span> No telling how long this tariff will last. This is a searchable list. For example search for "bicycle" or "tire" or "rubber". Try a few different terms as your item may not be described in here in the same way you would normally describe it. This was the list of bicycle related tariffs from last fall 2018 when the tariffs went to 10%. You can use this <a href="https://peopleforbikes.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/10-25-Percent-Tariffs-FINAL-List-of-Affected-Products.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3cCLZ5IyG6-PX83IXRaqGLkDyNcn_2Xs38xocs27XQ0H0mbC1KWXGk7BE" target="_blank">old list</a> (compiled courtesy of BPSA Bicycle Products Suppliers Assn) to cross check against the new 25% list above. <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/09/2019-09681/notice-of-modification-of-section-301-action-chinas-acts-policies-and-practices-related-to?fbclid=IwAR2-d1gWjBMYfq4p3tFQco7vhJ-LfybMZG5PNwetyDqqKLnoPXD7CdJ3CsA" target="_blank">This was the official announcement for the 25% tariff effective May 10 2019.</a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Clearly this can't last for long without having a substantial negative effect on the economy. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-the-hit-us-chinese-and-global-economies-could-face-as-trade-battle-heats-up-2019-05-09?mod=mw_theo_homepage" target="_blank">Oxford Economics reports</a> that the t</span>ariff hike will cost U.S. economy $29 billion by 2020 and cost the global economy $105 billion.</span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2019 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-74355208861465203912018-07-30T14:20:00.002-07:002018-07-30T14:20:18.655-07:00CPSC asks for responses on a series of questions addressing direct notice and other forms of consumer recall notification<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";">This notice below is directed at those companies who conduct recalls. The CPSC is trying to increase recall effectiveness (versus press releases and media notices which are for the most part not very good at reaching the affected consumers). Of course the best way to do that is to have consumers register with brands or their distributors so that if or when a product is ever recalled they can receive direct notice. The problem of course is ensuring that this data remains current over some uncertain time frame. That is a huge task and its not clear at this point whose job it is to do that. Also there could be lots of added or assumed responsibility on the recalling party to preserve this date for an indefinite period of time and to safeguard it like credit card data. As most of you know in states like California (and a few other states) product registration cannot be required in order to receive a full product warranty. Obviously some huge hurdles here. To comment before <b>September 5, 2018</b> visit <a href="https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=CPSC-2017-0027" target="_blank">this link</a>.</span></div>
<h1 id="h-1" style="text-align: left;">
AGENCY:</h1>
<div class="" data-page="29102" id="p-1" style="text-align: left;">
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.</div>
<h1 id="h-2" style="text-align: left;">
ACTION:</h1>
<div class="" data-page="29102" id="p-2" style="text-align: left;">
Notice of request for information.</div>
<h1 id="h-3" style="text-align: left;">
SUMMARY:</h1>
<div data-page="29102" id="p-3" style="text-align: left;">
To advance the concepts
discussed during the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC)
Recall Effectiveness Workshop in 2017, the CPSC announces a Request for
Information (RFI) from stakeholders to provide information critical to
future work on Recall Effectiveness. CPSC asks for responses on a series
of questions addressing direct notice and other forms of customer
notice. The information provided will help inform CPSC's efforts to
continue improving the effectiveness of recalls.</div>
<h1 id="h-4" style="text-align: left;">
DATES:</h1>
<div data-page="29102" id="p-4" style="text-align: left;">
Submit comments by September 5, 2018.</div>
<h1 id="addresses" style="text-align: left;">
ADDRESSES:</h1>
<div data-page="29102" id="p-5" style="text-align: left;">
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2017-0027, by any of the following methods:</div>
<div class="" data-page="29102" id="p-6" style="text-align: left;">
<em>Electronic Submissions:</em> Submit electronic comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: <em><a href="http://www.regulations.gov/">www.regulations.gov</a></em>.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does
not accept comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through
<em><a href="http://www.regulations.gov/">www.regulations.gov</a></em>.
The Commission encourages you to submit electronic comments by using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above; however, please do
not use this method if you are submitting confidential business
information or other sensitive information that should not be made
public.</div>
<div class="" data-page="29102" id="p-7" style="text-align: left;">
<em>Written Submissions:</em> Submit written submissions by
mail/hand delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product
Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD
20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.</div>
<div class="" data-page="29102" id="p-8" style="text-align: left;">
<em>Instructions:</em> All submissions received must include
the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments
received may be posted without change, including any personal
identifiers, contact information, or other personal information
provided, to: <em><a href="http://www.regulations.gov/">www.regulations.gov</a></em>.
If you submit confidential business information, trade secret
information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do not
want to be available to the public, do not submit it electronically,
but send it in hard copy to the Office of the Secretary at the address
indicated above. See also section III, below.</div>
<div data-page="29102" id="p-9" style="text-align: left;">
<em>Docket:</em> For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to: <em><a href="http://www.regulations.gov/">www.regulations.gov</a>,</em> and insert the docket number CPSC-2017-0027, into the “Search” box, and follow the prompts.</div>
<h1 id="further-info" style="text-align: left;">
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:</h1>
<div data-page="29102" id="p-10" style="text-align: left;">
Joseph F. Williams, Compliance
Officer, the Office of Compliance and Field Operations, U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Hwy., Bethesda, MD 20814;
telephone: 301-504-7585; email: <em><a href="mailto:jfwilliams@cpsc.gov">jfwilliams@cpsc.gov</a></em>.</div>
<h1 id="h-7" style="text-align: left;">
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:</h1>
<h2 id="h-8" style="text-align: left;">
I. Background</h2>
<h3 id="h-9" style="text-align: left;">
A. Recall Effectiveness Workshop</h3>
<div class="" data-page="29102" id="p-11" style="text-align: left;">
On July 25, 2017, the
CPSC hosted a Recall Effectiveness Workshop. The goal of the workshop
was to explore and develop proactive measures that CPSC and stakeholders
can undertake to improve recall effectiveness. Seventy-nine external
stakeholders attended the workshop, including various retailers,
manufacturers, law firms, consumer interest groups, third party recall
contractors and consultants, testing laboratories, and other interested
parties. CPSC staff facilitated an open discussion among these
participants about ways to increase recall effectiveness and also
gathered feedback on how CPSC can potentially improve its recall
efforts. Additional details may be found here: <em><a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/Recall-Effectiveness">https://www.cpsc.gov/Recall-Effectiveness</a>.</em>
</div>
<h3 id="h-10" style="text-align: left;">
B. Recall Effectiveness Report</h3>
<div data-page="29102" id="p-12" style="text-align: left;">
Following the workshop, CPSC
staff prepared a report, which was released on February 22, 2018. The
report stated that the CPSC staff intends to prioritize stakeholders'
suggestions to:</div>
<ul class="bullets" style="text-align: left;">
<li class="single-line" data-page="29102" id="p-13">Collaborate on ways to improve direct notice to consumers; and</li>
<li class="" data-page="29102" id="p-14">collaborate with firms to explore how technology can be used to enhance recall response.</li>
</ul>
<div data-page="29102" id="p-15" style="text-align: left;">
The report explained the reason for this focus:</div>
<div data-page="29102" id="p-16" style="text-align: left;">
<em>“Direct notice recalls have proven to be the most
effective recalls. We intend to work with consumer and industry
stakeholders on registration methods or other improvements (e.g.,
retailer opt-in at checkout, home voice assistants, photo texting, QR
codes, and incentives for product registration) to promote direct notice
recalls.”</em>
</div>
<div data-page="29102" id="p-17" style="text-align: left;">
<em>“We will continue to explore how technology can be used to
enhance recall response in appropriate cases, including enhancing
firms' recall marketing strategies, use of social media, and improved
methods for in-store communication. We intend to identify and share
examples of future recall marketing strategies that are innovative
and/or successful.”</em>
</div>
<div class="" data-page="29102" id="p-18" style="text-align: left;">
The full Recall Effectiveness Report may be found here: <em><a href="https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Recall_Effectiveness_Workshop_Report-2018.pdf?R1VyLltrl8M_id.2vkAklHoUZjaSCab">https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/Recall_Effectiveness_Workshop_Report-2018.pdf?R1VyLltrl8M_id.2vkAklHoUZjaSCab</a></em>.<span class="printed-page printed-page-inline unprinted-element icon-fr2 icon-fr2-doc-generic document-markup" data-page="29103"></span><span class="printed-page-wrapper unprinted-element-wrapper" style="top: 6px;"><span class="unprinted-element-border"></span><span class="printed-page unprinted-element cj-fancy-tooltip document-markup" data-page="29103" data-text="Start Printed Page 29103" data-tooltip-data="{"page": 29103}" data-tooltip-template="#print-page-tooltip-template" id="page-29103"><span class="icon-fr2 icon-fr2-doc-generic"></span><span class="text">Start Printed Page 29103</span></span></span>
</div>
<h2 id="h-11" style="text-align: left;">
II. Information Requested</h2>
<div data-page="29103" id="p-19" style="text-align: left;">
The CPSC seeks information on
current methods and systems that recalling firms use to assist in
providing direct notice to consumers. The CPSC also requests certain
information regarding the use of targeted notices to reach consumers who
may have purchased a recalled product.</div>
<h3 id="h-12" style="text-align: left;">
A. Direct Notice</h3>
<div class="" data-page="29103" id="p-20" style="text-align: left;">
1. What methods are available for directly notifying consumers of recalls (<em>e.g.,</em> mail, email, text)?</div>
<div data-page="29103" id="p-21" style="text-align: left;">
2. If you use direct notice for
recalls, what response rates do you achieve? Do the response rates
differ significantly for different recalls? If so, what factors appear
to influence the response rates? Do you follow up with additional direct
notice if a customer does not respond? How often? For how long?</div>
<div class="" data-page="29103" id="p-22" style="text-align: left;">
3. Do other companies or your company use all available direct notice methods during every product recall? If not, why not?</div>
<div class="" data-page="29103" id="p-23" style="text-align: left;">
4. Do e-commerce
retailers/third party platforms use direct notice capabilities for every
recall of products sold through their site/platform? If not, why not?</div>
<div class="" data-page="29103" id="p-24" style="text-align: left;">
5. What costs are
associated with direct notice? How do costs vary for different forms of
notice? What other factors affect cost?</div>
<div data-page="29103" id="p-25" style="text-align: left;">
6. What challenges and barriers prevent companies from pursuing or improving direct notice? Please address:</div>
<div class="flush-paragraph flush-paragraph-1" data-page="29103" id="p-26" style="text-align: left;">
a. Legal barriers</div>
<div class="flush-paragraph flush-paragraph-1" data-page="29103" id="p-27" style="text-align: left;">
b. Technological challenges</div>
<div class="flush-paragraph flush-paragraph-1" data-page="29103" id="p-28" style="text-align: left;">
c. Privacy challenges</div>
<div class="flush-paragraph flush-paragraph-1" data-page="29103" id="p-29" style="text-align: left;">
d. Security challenges</div>
<div class="flush-paragraph flush-paragraph-1" data-page="29103" id="p-30" style="text-align: left;">
e. Cost challenges</div>
<div class="flush-paragraph flush-paragraph-1" data-page="29103" id="p-31" style="text-align: left;">
f. Other challenges</div>
<div data-page="29103" id="p-32" style="text-align: left;">
7. What technologies exist or are
being developed that would assist a recalling company to acquire direct
contact information or capabilities to contact purchasers and/or issue
direct notice for recalls?</div>
<div class="" data-page="29103" id="p-33" style="text-align: left;">
8. What methods do you use to collect direct contact information at the point of sale?</div>
<div data-page="29103" id="p-34" style="text-align: left;">
9. Does your attempt to collect
direct contact information depend on the item(s) purchased? Is the cost
of the item at all relevant?</div>
<div class="" data-page="29103" id="p-35" style="text-align: left;">
10. Have you worked with a third-party entity (<em>e.g.,</em>
credit card or payment processing companies, product registries, data
collection platforms, online retailers) to identify or contact consumers
who previously purchased a product subject to a recall? If so, how, and
with what types of companies did you work?</div>
<div class="" data-page="29103" id="p-36" style="text-align: left;">
11. For retailers that have information on their customers (<em>e.g.,</em>
retail credit/debit cards, loyalty program, membership registration),
can such information be accessed through purchase data to provide direct
notice?</div>
<div class="" data-page="29103" id="p-37" style="text-align: left;">
12. What would make direct notice more effective (<em>e.g.,</em> notice type, number of touches)?</div>
<div data-page="29103" id="p-38" style="text-align: left;">
13. How can the CPSC help facilitate direct notice to consumers?</div>
<div class="" data-page="29103" id="p-39" style="text-align: left;">
14. What can we learn from marketing efforts (<em>e.g.,</em>
needed resources, personnel qualifications, channels of communication,
evaluating messaging effectiveness, etc.) to better reach consumers for
recall purposes?</div>
<h3 id="h-13" style="text-align: left;">
B. Product Registration</h3>
<div data-page="29103" id="p-40" style="text-align: left;">
1. What product registration methods are used today to collect consumer information and track purchased/registered products?</div>
<div class="" data-page="29103" id="p-41" style="text-align: left;">
2. Why do companies
offer product registration? Are product registration programs due to
mandatory requirements by CPSC or other agencies, or for other reasons?</div>
<div data-page="29103" id="p-42" style="text-align: left;">
3. What are participation rates
in product registration? Do you see significant differences in the
registration rates for different types of products?</div>
<div data-page="29103" id="p-43" style="text-align: left;">
4. What type of information is collected during product registration?</div>
<div data-page="29103" id="p-44" style="text-align: left;">
5. Is product registration more or less successful if marketing information is not collected at the same time? Why?</div>
<div data-page="29103" id="p-45" style="text-align: left;">
6. What methods are in use or are being developed to increase responses to product registration (<em>e.g.,</em> warranties, incentives, voice assistant technology)?</div>
<div data-page="29103" id="p-46" style="text-align: left;">
7. When does the personal information collected for product registration get used for marketing purposes?</div>
<div data-page="29103" id="p-47" style="text-align: left;">
a. Are opt-in/opt-out choices provided to consumers for marketing? Describe.</div>
<div data-page="29103" id="p-48" style="text-align: left;">
8. What technologies exist or are being developed to advance product registration?</div>
<div data-page="29103" id="p-49" style="text-align: left;">
9. What would make product registration more effective?</div>
<div class="" data-page="29103" id="p-50" style="text-align: left;">
10. How can the CPSC help facilitate or improve product registration rates?</div>
<div class="" data-page="29103" id="p-51" style="text-align: left;">
11. Has the ability to
register a product online or electronically had an effect on the volume
of consumer response to product registration?</div>
<h3 id="h-14" style="text-align: left;">
C. Targeted Notice</h3>
<div class="" data-page="29103" id="p-52" style="text-align: left;">
A targeted notice is a
notice aimed at a particular group of likely affected consumers, but not
at a known purchaser or consumer like direct notice (<em>e.g.,</em>
targeted search engine ads, paid social media, micro marketing, such as
internet radio and targeted use of voice assistant technologies).</div>
<div data-page="29103" id="p-53" style="text-align: left;">
1. Have you used any of the targeted methods listed above or others to reach consumers? What success have you seen?</div>
<div data-page="29103" id="p-54" style="text-align: left;">
2. Do companies use the information previously collected to assist in issuing targeted recall notices when announcing recalls?</div>
<div class="" data-page="29103" id="p-55" style="text-align: left;">
3. What costs are
generally associated with targeted methods, including targeted search
engine ads, paid social media, micro marketing, such as internet radio,
and voice assistant technologies?</div>
<div data-page="29103" id="p-56" style="text-align: left;">
4. What challenges and barriers prevent companies from pursuing targeted notices for recalls? Please address:</div>
<div class="flush-paragraph flush-paragraph-1" data-page="29103" id="p-57" style="text-align: left;">
a. Legal barriers</div>
<div class="flush-paragraph flush-paragraph-1" data-page="29103" id="p-58" style="text-align: left;">
b. Technological challenges</div>
<div class="flush-paragraph flush-paragraph-1" data-page="29103" id="p-59" style="text-align: left;">
c. Privacy challenges</div>
<div class="flush-paragraph flush-paragraph-1" data-page="29103" id="p-60" style="text-align: left;">
d. Security challenges</div>
<div class="flush-paragraph flush-paragraph-1" data-page="29103" id="p-61" style="text-align: left;">
e. Cost challenges</div>
<div class="flush-paragraph flush-paragraph-1" data-page="29103" id="p-62" style="text-align: left;">
f. Other challenges</div>
<div data-page="29103" id="p-63" style="text-align: left;">
5. What technologies exist or are being developed that can improve the effectiveness of targeted notice?</div>
<div class="" data-page="29103" id="p-64" style="text-align: left;">
6. How can the CPSC help facilitate new or improved targeted recall notice campaigns?</div>
<div class="" data-page="29103" id="p-65" style="text-align: left;">
7. Are there other forms of recall notice that are worth exploring for more discussion?</div>
<h3 id="h-15" style="text-align: left;">
D. For Consumers and Other Stakeholders</h3>
<div class="" data-page="29103" id="p-66" style="text-align: left;">
1. Would you be
interested in working directly with the CPSC to explore best practices
for implementing product registration, improving current direct notice
capabilities, or developing targeted notices?</div>
<div class="" data-page="29103" id="p-67" style="text-align: left;">
2. Are there data
showing what forms, types, and frequency of messaging consumers are most
likely to respond to in direct and targeted notices?</div>
<div class="" data-page="29103" id="p-68" style="text-align: left;">
3. How can companies
incentivize consumers to register their products or to provide the
information needed for direct notice in the event of a recall?</div>
<div class="" data-page="29103" id="p-69" style="text-align: left;">
4. What concerns do
consumers have regarding the use of their personal information for
recall notification purposes? What can firms do to overcome these
concerns?</div>
<h2 id="h-16" style="text-align: left;">
III. Confidentiality</h2>
<div class="" data-page="29103" id="p-70" style="text-align: left;">
All data submitted is
subject to Section 6 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C.
Section 2055) and may be considered confidential, except to the extent
otherwise provided by law. Please identify any portion of your
submission that you believe is confidential.</div>
<div class="signature" style="text-align: left;">
<div class="signature-name">
Alberta E. Mills,</div>
<div class="signature-title">
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.</div>
</div>
<div class="frdoc" style="text-align: left;">
[FR Doc. <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/a/2018-13388">2018-13388</a> Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am]</div>
<div class="frdoc" style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial";"> </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2013 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-70809489579805426382018-02-09T13:44:00.001-08:002018-02-16T10:36:50.024-08:00In what may be the first "gig economy" case to be fully decided on the merits a California federal court finds that an independent contractor is not an employee [ Lawson v Grubhub Inc. Case No.15-cv-05128-JSC ]<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
The case involved Grubhub in a labor lawsuit filed by one of its former drivers (plaintiff Lawson) In a <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zgPvPqOCkV_iv_14yqoviiMlGbOd0M6v" target="_blank">long and detailed court opinion</a> released February 8, 2018 by US Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley, who ruled: "the Court [found] that Grubhub [had] satisfied its burden of showing that Mr. Lawson was properly classified as an independent contractor." The plaintiff Lawson was an aspiring actor who made ends meet with various day jobs and sued Grubhub in 2015. He argued that he should have been classified as an employee, not a contractor. The case was originally filed as a proposed class-action lawsuit, but that class action status was never allowed by the court. It is important to note that this case was a judge (court) trial not a jury trial
and was NOT a motion for summary judgment. Closing arguments in this
trial were heard in October 2017.<br />
<br />
I highly recommend reading the <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zgPvPqOCkV_iv_14yqoviiMlGbOd0M6v" target="_blank">full decision here</a> as it's a good road map to follow in making the independent contractor employee determination. However part of why it's important not to read too much into individual cases was the judges finding that the Plaintiff was fundamentally "not credible.". Lawson, by his own admission, "gamed the Grubhub driver app". This credibility finding may have hurt the plaintiff in many ways.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
On the other hand the judge ruled "Grubhub did control some aspects of Mr. Lawson's work," by "determin[ing] the rates Mr. Lawson would be paid and the fee customers would pay for delivery services. While the Agreement states that a driver may negotiate his own rate, this right is hypothetical rather than real. The Court finds that Mr. Lawson could not negotiate his pay in any meaningful way and therefore this fact weighs in favor of an employment relationship."<br />
<br />
This is a good example of the uncertainty involved in trying to determine employment status which is governed in California by the multi-factor test set forth in <u><i>S.G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341 (1989). </i></u><br />
<br />
The Grubhub case likely has limited precedential value as each employee vs independent contractor determination relies heavily on the specific facts unique to the relationship between the worker and the employer/company. This is what makes these cases so difficult. They literally must all be decided by a trier of fact making the process very expensive and very uncertain for any employer who quite frankly has the deck stacked against it as well as large financial disincentives for litigating these matters.<br />
<br />
Plaintiff's counsel did indicate there would be an appeal and was surprised that the federal court did not wait for the California Supreme Court in its anticipated decision in <u><i>Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court.</i></u> There the California Supreme Court has agreed to review a Court of Appeal decision that expanded the definition of “employee.” The lower Court of Appeal in Dynamex adopted the much-broader definition of “employ,” meaning “to engage, suffer or permit to work.” expanding the meaning of the term “employee,” to nearly every labor relationship a company would be likely to have.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228 © Copyright 1996-2013 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4641011246011992854.post-26319742735296601732017-08-17T14:57:00.000-07:002018-01-24T15:12:02.209-08:00California Proposition 65 regulations amended to require more specificity on warnings<div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
On August 30, 2016, (yes a year ago) the California Office of Administrative Law approved the
adoption of amendments to Article 6, "Clear and Reasonable Warnings", of
the California Code of Regulations. This was a <i>regulatory</i> "repeal and replace" and not a <i>legislative</i> one so as a result it was further off the news "radar". The new regulations provide, among other things, methods of
transmission and content of warnings deemed to be compliant with the
Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Prop. 65). Prop 65 regulations are promulgated by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) which also maintains the Prop 65 chemical list and is one of 6 agencies under the<span style="text-align: center;"> </span>California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA)<span style="text-align: center;">.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Most companies already know that any consumer product sold in California must comply with Proposition 65, meaning that their products sold in California cannot contain harmful amounts of the chemicals on its notorious <a href="https://oehha.ca.gov/chemicals" target="_blank">800 chemical list </a>(and growing). Its important to keep in mind that this list continues to grow and is much more extensive than the EU REACH law/regulation (which currently lists only about 200 chemicals). Its also much more extensive that the US Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC) regulations which are mostly confined to lead and Phthalates. There has been quite a bit of publicity surrounding <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-glyphosate-california-idUSKBN19H2K1" target="_blank">Monsanto's futile legal efforts</a> to keep RoundUp weed killer off the Prop 65 list.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The difficulty with the new warning requirement (<b>which does not go into effect until August 30, 2018</b>) is that if you test and if you find something on the list in your product you must now have specific "safe harbor" warnings that include any of the 800 chemicals on the list that might be in your product in harmful amounts. Under the old abolished regulations you could utilize a "safe harbor" (provision of a statute or a regulation that specifies that certain conduct will be deemed not to violate a given rule) warning that did not need to specify which of the 800 chemicals on the list might exist in the product. Now of course one can debate the merits of warnings generally, especially the efficacy of one that lists the offending complex chemical name over one that does not, but we don't have enough space on this post to have that debate. The point is this is now the current state of the law and my advice is to try to <a href="http://prop65scam.com/" target="_blank">steer clear of Prop. 65 suits</a> (just like ADA suits and host of others). Also these warnings cannot exist solely in user's manuals unless you are a vehicle manufacturer who got special dispensation under the new regulations (but even they still must have stand alone warnings)</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
The other interesting issue is that if your company was part of a settlement of a Prop 65 suit. Under the new law a company that is a party to a court-ordered settlement or final judgment establishing a warning method or content, is deemed to be providing a “clear and reasonable” warning <i>for that exposure</i> for purposes of the new law, <i>if the warning fully complies with the order or judgment. </i>This covers a few companies in the bicycle arena. It's not known how many total companies are exempted by this as that would depend a lot on the terms of the settlement and (I assume) the chemicals ("the exposure") involved in that particular suit.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
Clearly there is going to be lots of work ahead in the next year for all consumer product manufacturers, brands, distributors, resellers, and retailers (on line and off). You can be sure Amazon, Walmart and all the big retailers are well aware of these issues and they will surely come up in contract negotiations with sellers to most large retailers.</div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial";"><a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/" target="_blank">Law Offices of Steven W. Hansen </a>| www.swhlaw.com | 562 866 6228
© Copyright 1996-2013 <a href="http://www.swhlaw.com/2007/11/site-disclaimer.html" target="_blank">Conditions of Use</a></span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com